84252 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

3.6 USPS Ground Advantage—Commercial 

Markings 

3.6.1 Basic Markings 

[Revise the last sentence of 3.6.1 to read as 

follows:] 

* * * When a shipping address label is 

used, the basic required price marking must 

be printed as provided under 3.9. 

* * * * * 

3.7 Parcel Select, Bound Printed Matter, 

Media Mail, and Library Mail Markings 

3.7.1 Basic Markings 

[Revise the last sentence in the 

introductory text of 3.7.1 to read as follows:] 

* * * When a shipping address label is 

used, the basic required price marking must 

be printed as provided under 3.9. 

[Delete items a and b in their entirety.] 

[Delete Exhibit 3.7.1 in its entirety.] 

* * * * * 

[Delete 3.9, Marking Hazardous Materials, 

and add new 3.9 to read as follows:] 

3.9 Shipping Address Label Markings 

3.9.1 General 

When a shipping address label is used, it 

must include the correct service indicator 

composed of two elements, the service icon 

(except as provided under 3.9.2) and service 

banner. For information on the markings and 

specifications, see the Parcel Labeling Guide 

available on the PostalPro website at 

postalpro.usps.com/parcellabelingguide). 

Failure to comply may subject the piece to 

the IMpb noncompliance fee. 

3.9.2 Hazardous Materials 

When a shipping address label is used on 

items containing mailable hazardous 

materials, it must include the hazardous 

materials icon in lieu of the service icon as 

provided in the Parcel Labeling Guide. 

* * * * * 

[Add new 9.0 to read as follows:] 

9.0 Hazardous Materials 

9.1 General 

Mailers must ensure that their packages 

meet all applicable markings under 3.0, and 

ancillary service endorsement requirements 

under 507.1.5. 

9.2 Shipping Address Labels 

When a shipping address label is used, the 

basic required price marking must be printed 

as provided under 3.9. 

9.3 Additional Elements 

All mailable hazardous materials must also 

include the applicable labels, markings, and 

tags, as required in Publication 52, 

Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail. 

* * * * * 

600 Basic Standards for All Mailing 

Services 

601 Mailability 

* * * * * 

8.0 Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable 

Mail 

* * * * * 

[Add a new 8.5 to read as follows:] 

8.5 Hazardous Materials Labeling 

All mailable hazardous materials must be 

marked as provided under 202.9.0 and 

include the applicable labels, markings, and 

tags, as required in Publication 52, 

Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail. 

* * * * * 

Colleen Hibbert-Kapler, 

Attorney, Ethics and Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26483 Filed 12–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0095; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] 

RIN 1018–BF06 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Threatened Status With 

Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern and 

Southern Distinct Population 

Segments of the Western Spadefoot 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the northern distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the western spadefoot 

(Spea hammondii), an amphibian 

occurring in central and northern 

California, and the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot, occurring in 

southern California and northwestern 

Mexico, as threatened DPSs under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended. This determination serves 

as our 12-month finding on a petition to 

list the western spadefoot range-wide. 

After a review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that listing the northern and 

southern DPSs of the western spadefoot 

as threatened is warranted. Accordingly, 

we propose to list the northern and 

southern DPSs of the western spadefoot 

as threatened DPSs with a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) 

rule’’). If we finalize this rule as 

proposed, it would add the northern 

DPS and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and extend the 

Act’s protections to the two DPSs. Due 

to the current lack of data sufficient to 

perform required analyses, we conclude 

that the designation of critical habitat 

for the northern DPS and southern DPS 

of the western spadefoot is not 

determinable at this time. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

February 5, 2024. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by January 19, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. enter FWS–R8– 

ES–2023–0095, which is the docket 

number for this rulemaking. Then, click 

on the Search button. On the resulting 

page, in the panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0095, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0095. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 

916–414–6700. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0095 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. The 

Act defines a ‘‘species’’ as any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84253 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment 

(DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature. Any reference to the term 

‘‘species’’ in this document pertains to 

either the northern or southern DPS, 

unless otherwise noted. Under the Act, 

a DPS warrants listing if it meets the 

definition of an endangered species (in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range) or a 

threatened species (likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a DPS warrants listing, 

we must list the DPS promptly and 

designate the DPS’s critical habitat to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. We have determined that 

the western spadefoot occurring in the 

Central Valley and foothill regions in 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains and along 

the northern Coast Ranges to Santa 

Barbara County in California, and the 

western spadefoot in southern 

California from Los Angeles County and 

Transverse Range south to northwestern 

Baja California, Mexico are valid DPSs 

as described in our 1996 policy (61 FR 

4722) and meet the definition of 

threatened species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list them as such. Listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species can be completed 

only by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We have 

determined that the western spadefoot 

is comprised of two DPSs, the northern 

DPS and the southern DPS. We are 

proposing to list the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

as threatened species with a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act (a ‘‘4(d) rule’’) for 

both species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a DPS is an 

endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the northern DPS 

and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot are threatened due to the 

following threats: habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation largely 

attributable to development, 

urbanization, and agricultural land 

conversion (factor A); chemical 

contaminants (factor E); nonnative 

predators (factor C); wildfire (factor A); 

noise disturbance (factor E); and the 

effects associated with climate change 

(most notably drought) (factor E). Of 

these threats, we identified habitat loss 

and degradation from land conversion 

(factor A) and the effects of climate 

change (factor E) mostly associated with 

severe drought as the major influences 

driving the current condition of the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, to designate critical 

habitat concurrent with listing. We have 

not yet been able to obtain the necessary 

economic information needed to 

develop proposed critical habitat 

designations for the two DPSs, although 

we are in the process of obtaining this 

information. At this time, we find that 

designation of critical habitat for the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot is not determinable. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The two DPS’s biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the two DPSs, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of these two DPSs; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for these two DPSs, their 

habitat, or both; and 

(f) Tribal use or cultural significance 

of the two species, including traditional 

ecological knowledge (TEK) on the two 

DPSs. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the two DPSs, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the two DPSs, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to these two 

DPSs. 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to these two DPSs. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of these 

two DPSs. 

(4) Information on regulations that 

may be necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot and that we can 

consider in developing a 4(d) rule for 

these two DPSs. In particular, we seek 

information concerning the extent to 

which we should include any of the 

section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or 

whether we should consider any 

additional exceptions from the 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and section 

4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the 

Secretary shall designate critical habitat 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84254 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments that we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that 

either DPS is endangered instead of 

threatened, or we may conclude that 

either DPS does not warrant listing as an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In addition, we may change the 

parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions in the 

proposed 4(d) rule if we conclude it is 

appropriate to do so in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions to include prohibiting 

additional activities if we conclude that 

those additional activities are not 

compatible with conservation of either 

DPS. Conversely, we may establish 

additional exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of either 

DPS. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 2005, although the western 

spadefoot was not listed as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act, we included the species within 

our final Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool 

Ecosystems of California and Southern 

Oregon (Service 2005, entire). The 

recovery plan outlines conservation and 

management actions to be taken to help 

conserve vernal pool, swale, and 

ephemeral habitats, which include the 

habitat of the western spadefoot. On 

July 11, 2012, we received a petition 

from the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) to list the western spadefoot (CBD 

2012, pp. 1–86 and 197–203). On July 1, 

2015, we published our 90-day finding 

in the Federal Register that found the 

petition to list the western spadefoot 

presented substantial information to 

indicate that listing may be warranted 

(80 FR 37568). We then added the 

western spadefoot to our national 

workplan to complete our 12-month 

finding for the species. This document 

serves as our 12-month finding and 

proposed listing rule for the species. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

western spadefoot (Service 2023, entire). 

The SSA team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the western spadefoot SSA report. We 

sent the draft SSA report (Service 2020a, 

entire) to six independent peer 

reviewers and received two responses. 

Both peer reviewers noted significant 

concerns with our analysis, including 

how we characterized suitable terrestrial 

habitat, how we described habitat loss 

now and in the future, how we used or 

did not use data, and how we provided 

conclusions that were not justified. 

Because of this response, we held a 

meeting on July 8 and 9, 2020, with 

known species experts to receive 

information and guidance on ways to 

appropriately analyze the species 

throughout both the northern and 

southern clades. The western spadefoot 

is composed of two genetically distinct, 

allopatric clades that show no evidence 

of interbreeding, separated by the 

Transverse Mountain Range in 

California. In our SSA report, we refer 

to them as the northern western 

spadefoot clade, and the southern 

western spadefoot clade and assess their 

status separately. 

The July 2020 expert meeting resulted 

in revisions to the condition category 

tables we used in the SSA report to 

assess the species’ status and, therefore, 

also resulted in changing the results of 

our analysis. After revising the SSA 

report, we solicited another 

independent scientific review of the 

analysis. We sent the updated SSA 

report (Service 2020b, entire) to the 

same two peer reviewers who 

responded during the previous peer 

review and received responses from 

both. Results of this structured peer 

review process can be found at https:// 

regulations.gov. In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the current SSA report (Service 

2023, entire), which is the foundation 

for this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from two peer 

reviewers on the updated SSA report. 

We reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA report. The peer 

reviewers generally provided additional 

references, clarifications, and wording 

suggestions. We revised the updated 

SSA report based on the peer reviewers’ 

comments, including changing our 

condition categories for the current and 

future analyses, clarifying specific 

points where appropriate, and adding 

details and suggested references where 

needed. Peer reviewer comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and were incorporated into the current 

SSA report (Service 2023, entire) as 

appropriate. 

Comment 1: One peer reviewer stated 

that our assertion that there are no 

differences in habitat characteristics 

between the northern and southern 

clades of the western spadefoot was not 

accurate, as indicated by habitat models 

(Neal et al. 2018, entire) that showed 

southern locality characteristics cannot 

predict the northern range and vice 

versa. 

Our response: We acknowledge that 

habitat characteristics in the northern 

and southern range are different and 

clarified our discussion of habitat for 

both DPSs as indicated by habitat 

modeling (Neal et al. 2018, entire) as 

appropriate in the current SSA report 

and included additional references that 

found western spadefoot occurrences in 

the northern clade are associated with 

grassland habitat whereas occurrences 

in the southern clade are associated 

with grassland and shrub/scrub habitat 

(Rose et al. 2020, p. 6; Rose et al. 2022, 

p. 2). The current version of the SSA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84255 

report reflects these differences (Service 

2023, pp. 10–11). 

Comment 2: One peer reviewer felt 

our characterization and use of 

precipitation data, which were used to 

determine current condition, were not 

adequate. They stated that our approach 

was too narrow, using only the most 

recent 6 years of average rainfall data, 

and that we should conduct a more 

thorough analysis using the last 100 

years to fully capture the variance in 

precipitation across the range of both 

clades and therefore provide a more 

accurate current condition. 

Our response: The approach we took 

looking at the most recent 6 years of 

data was similar to an analysis 

completed by other researchers (Fisher 

et al. 2018, pp. 6124–6132), which 

looked at recent drought implications 

on the longevity and age structure of the 

arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), a 

federally endangered species that occurs 

in portions of the western spadefoot’s 

range. Using the more recent data 

allowed us to gain insight into the 

magnitude, extent, and frequency of the 

current threats facing the species. In 

addition, although additional 

precipitation data are available, they are 

not available rangewide. As a result, we 

determined that the past 6 years of 

precipitation data constitute the best 

scientific information available for our 

analysis. 

Comment 3: The peer reviewers 

questioned the assumption in the SSA 

report that occurrence information from 

the California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) can be used as 

proxies for breeding ponds. They stated 

that many of these occurrences are 

likely incidental records of adults near 

or crossing roads and are not indicative 

of a breeding pond. They also 

questioned assumptions made for the 

abundance analysis, including whether 

multiple overlapping records indicate 

one breeding pond or multiple breeding 

ponds, the timeframe for the occurrence 

data used, and how varying sampling 

efforts among populations may 

influence abundance estimates in the 

SSA report. 

Our response: We recognize that there 

are limitations with the occurrence data 

we used; however, because no 

rangewide surveys or assessments have 

occurred of ponded habitat used by 

western spadefoots and the species uses 

ephemeral aquatic habitat for breeding 

(including habitat not characterized as 

ponds), we determined that the CNDDB 

data constitutes the best scientific 

information available for the rangewide 

status assessment on habitat use and 

abundance estimates. In the revised 

updated SSA report, we included 

additional detail on how the occurrence 

data were used for the abundance 

assessment and clarified our methods, 

such as providing additional detail on 

our method for assessing abundance and 

estimating the effective number of 

breeders within local populations. 

Comment 4: One peer reviewer stated 

our approach to estimating the effective 

number of breeders within a local 

population likely inflates the estimates. 

Our response: We acknowledge that 

our estimate of the effective number of 

breeders within a local population is 

likely an overestimation. The 

overestimation stems from our use and 

extrapolation of a single study (Neal 

2019, entire), which was not rangewide 

or over an extended timeframe. 

Implementing additional surveys over a 

longer period would most likely give a 

more accurate number of effective 

breeders at occupied locations for the 

species. To assist in determining if our 

estimates were consistent and provided 

meaningful information, we compared 

our estimates to another amphibian 

species (black toad (Bufo exsul)) that 

uses similar habitats and found that our 

estimates for the two clades (although 

not exact) are similarly low and our 

breeding number estimates are 

consistent with the other species (Wang 

2009, pp. 3852–3853). Lastly, our use 

and estimate of the effective number of 

breeders is only one component of 

determining the species’ current and 

future resiliency in which we also 

considered habitat quantity, 

distribution, and quality as well as 

various precipitation variables. As a 

result, we have determined that our 

estimates are based on the best scientific 

information available and are 

appropriate to use in this assessment. 

Comment 5: One peer reviewer was 

concerned about the current condition 

analysis for regions that have no data on 

the estimated effective number of 

breeders. They suggested using the 

average of the estimated effective 

number of breeders from surrounding 

regions or using the estimated effective 

number of breeders from the nearest 

region. 

Our response: We updated our 

analysis to include an abundance 

category for those regions lacking data 

and used the estimated effective number 

of breeders from the nearest region to 

complete our analysis. 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

Below, we briefly describe 

information about the western spadefoot 

and its habitat and range. A thorough 

description and other information 

including life history and ecology of the 

western spadefoot is presented in the 

SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 4–22). 

Species and Habitat Information 

The western spadefoot is a small 

amphibian often referred to as a toad but 

is typical in shape to most fossorial 

(burrowing) frogs. Individuals of the 

species vary in size from 1.5 to 2.5 

inches (in) (3.8 to 6.3 centimeters (cm)) 

in length. Western spadefoots have a 

wedge-shaped, glossy black hardened 

‘‘spade’’ on each hind foot that is used 

for digging burrows in the ground to 

avoid desiccation during the dry season, 

from late spring to early fall, or for 

sheltering during the active season 

(early fall to late spring). 

The western spadefoot is primarily 

terrestrial and uses nearby aquatic 

habitat only for breeding and rearing 

(Dimmitt and Ruibal 1980, p. 21). The 

species requires a variety of both 

terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

components in close proximity and 

accessible to each other in order to meet 

all of their life history requirements 

(Halstead et al. 2021, 1377–1393). The 

terrestrial (upland) habitat is primarily 

open grasslands, scrub, or mixed 

woodland and grassland on flat or 

gently rolling topography and provides 

areas for sheltering and foraging 

(Stebbins and McGinnis 2012, p. 157). 

The aquatic habitat required for 

breeding, egg laying, and tadpole and 

juvenile development is most often 

associated with vernal pool or other 

ephemeral wetland areas. Vernal pools 

are seasonal shallow ephemeral aquatic 

features that pond in depressions that 

are underlain by a subsurface that limits 

drainage (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998, p. 8). 

Vernal pools require the appropriate 

amount and timing of precipitation to 

fill each year. Some years with 

intermittent rainfall or during periods of 

drought, vernal pools may not provide 

habitat sufficient for successful breeding 

and rearing of the species. However, the 

species is highly adaptable and uses 

many other types of ponded water 

features for breeding and rearing 

including any water feature such as 

ponded features within intermittent 

streams, artificially created pools or 

ponds (i.e., mitigation pools and 

livestock or agricultural ponds), 

drainage ditches, roadside pools or ruts, 

and other locations where water pools 

or ponds after rain events and provides 

sufficient time for reproduction and 

metamorphosis (Morey 1998, pp. 86–90; 

Morey 2005, p. 515; Service 2023, p. 

13). 

Western spadefoots are uniquely 

adapted to dry conditions and have 

several behavioral and physiological 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84256 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

adaptations to facilitate moisture 

retention and lessen the impacts 

associated with dry conditions (Service 

2005, pp. II–228–II–229). One of these 

adaptations is its construction of 

burrows to allow for its long 

underground dry-season dormancy 

(Ruibal et al. 1969, pp. 573–577; Morey 

2005, p. 516). To prevent water loss in 

the burrows, western spadefoots secrete 

a semipermeable membrane that 

thickens their skins making them highly 

resistant to dehydration and they are 

able to lose over half of their body 

weight due to evaporation (Duellman 

and Trueb 1994, pp. 197–203). While in 

their burrows western spadefoots are 

also able to absorb moisture from the 

soil by maintaining higher osmotic body 

fluid pressure that exceeds that of the 

soil moisture tension (Ruibal et al. 1969, 

pp. 578–581; Shoemaker et al. 1969, pp. 

585–590). 

Range and Distribution 

The historical range of western 

spadefoot as a whole is from the vicinity 

of Redding in Shasta County, California, 

southward to northwestern Baja 

California, Mexico (Stebbins and 

McGinnis 2012, p. 157). In California, 

the western spadefoot is found 

throughout portions of the foothills of 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains up to 

4,500 ft (1,385 m), the Central Valley, 

and in the Coast Range from Santa Clara 

and Santa Cruz Counties to San Diego 

County (Service 2023, figure 2, p. 7). In 

Mexico, western spadefoots are known 

to occur from the U.S. international 

border south to approximately El 

Rosario near Mesa de San Carlos in Baja 

California, Mexico (Grismer 2002, pp. 

84–85; Amphibian and Reptile Atlas 

2023, entire). 

Currently, the species is patchily 

distributed throughout its historical 

range (Service 2023, p. 7). A species 

distribution model for the northern 

portion of the western spadefoot’s range 

(north of Santa Barbara, California) 

found the areas predicted to have 

suitable habitat are patchily distributed 

north in the Coast Range, along the 

foothills surrounding both sides of the 

Central Valley, and in remnant habitat 

within the Central Valley (Rose et al. 

2020, entire; Service 2023, pp. 33–34). 

The species in southern California, 

based on survey efforts from researchers 

and regional HCP monitoring and 

survey efforts on Department of Defense 

(DOD) facilities, is also patchily 

distributed with occupied areas 

associated with the large, urbanized 

areas of Los Angeles and San Diego 

being mostly extirpated. The species in 

Baja California, Mexico is distributed in 

small populations dispersed throughout 

its historical range in Mexico. 

Taxonomy 

The western spadefoot (Spea 

hammondii) was first described and 

named by Spencer F. Baird in 1859, 

from a specimen collected by Dr. J.F. 

Hammond near Redding, California 

(Baird 1859, p. 12). Until the late 1960s, 

the species was regarded as having a 

broad geographic range from California 

to western Texas and Oklahoma with a 

distributional gap in the Mojave Desert 

of California (Storer 1925, p. 148). In the 

late 1960s, researchers identified 

morphological, vocalization, and 

reproductive differences between 

eastern (Arizona eastward) and western 

(California and Baja California) 

populations, justifying species 

recognition for each entity (Brown 1967, 

p. 759). The study identified 

populations west of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains and southward into Baja, 

Mexico, as retaining the name Spea 

hammondii (with a common name of 

western spadefoot), while the remainder 

of the populations were designated as S. 

multiplicata (Mexican spadefoot) or S. 

intermontana (Great Basin spadefoot). 

Genetic Information 

Genetic analysis of nuclear and 

mitochondrial DNA data from 

populations throughout the range of the 

western spadefoot identified two 

genetically distinct, allopatric (separate) 

clades that show no evidence of 

interbreeding, and researchers agree the 

two clades make up two separate 

entities (Neal et al. 2018, pp. 937–938; 

Neal 2019, p. 114). 

Distinct Population Segment Evaluation 

Under the Act, the term species 

includes any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). To guide the implementation 

of the distinct population segment (DPS) 

provisions of the Act, we, and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration—Fisheries), published 

the Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS 

Policy) in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under 

our DPS Policy, we use two elements to 

assess whether a population segment 

under consideration for listing may be 

recognized as a DPS: (1) The population 

segment’s discreteness from the 

remainder of the species to which it 

belongs, and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs. If we determine that 

a population segment being considered 

for listing is a DPS, then the population 

segment’s conservation status is 

evaluated based on the five listing 

factors established by the Act to 

determine if listing it as either 

endangered or threatened is warranted. 

Under the Act, we have the authority 

to consider for listing any species, 

subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS 

of these taxa if there is sufficient 

information to indicate that such action 

may be warranted. Based on the 

information available regarding 

potential discreteness and significance 

for the western spadefoot, we have 

determined it is appropriate to review 

the status of the species by first 

conducting a DPS analysis. 

Discreteness 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

of the following conditions: (1) it is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

For the western spadefoot, we 

examined recent genetic information, 

the distribution of the species’ 

populations, and a review of any 

potential barriers for dispersal as our 

means of determining discreteness for 

potential DPSs. 

As discussed briefly above and in the 

SSA report (Service 2023, section 3.2, p. 

5), there is substantial genetic evidence 

that the western spadefoot is 

biogeographically divided into two 

clades (a group of organisms having the 

same ancestral lineage) with no gene 

flow between the clades. Past genetic 

work on mitochondrial DNA analysis 

(Garcia-Paris et al. 2003, pp. 16–20) 

hinted at such separation but the sample 

size was limited. However, more recent 

genetic research (Neal et al. 2018, entire; 

Neal 2019, entire) looking at both 

nuclear and mitochondrial DNA with a 

larger sample size (45 sites for the 

northern clade and 20 sites for the 

southern clade) representing the 

distribution of the western spadefoot in 

California strongly suggests separation 

of the species into two entities. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84257 

results of the most recent genetic 

research identified that individuals of 

the southern clade of Spea hammondii 

share more genetic characteristics with 

S. intermontana that occur in eastern 

California than they do with members of 

the western spadefoot clade in the 

north. In addition, the genetic 

information did not identify any 

mitochondrial haplotypes of the 

southern clade within the northern 

clade of the western spadefoot, 

signifying no apparent mixture of the 

two clades. These results confirmed that 

the northern and southern distributions 

of the western spadefoot are two 

genetically distinct, allopatric clades 

that show no evidence of interbreeding 

and are separate (Neal et al. 2018, p. 

941; Neal 2019, pp. 107–114). 

To further evaluate whether the 

northern and southern clades of western 

spadefoots are separate populations 

based on habitat associations, the same 

researchers (Neal et al. 2018, pp. 940– 

944; Neal 2019, pp. 1–30) used 

environmental niche modeling (ENM), 

that included numerous bioclimatic 

variables and slope information, to 

assess and quantify ecological 

differentiation that would be consistent 

with functional (physical) or 

physiological separation between the 

northern and southern populations. The 

results of the ENM further corroborated 

the genetic analysis results discussed 

above, with the western spadefoot 

inhabiting unique climatic niches 

between the northern and southern 

populations of western spadefoot 

indicating ecological differentiation. 

The genetic research and ENM 

identified the Transverse Range in 

northern Los Angeles and southern 

Santa Barbara counties as an area of 

unsuitable or unused habitat for the 

species that serves as a barrier to 

dispersal between the two populations. 

As a result, we have determined that the 

western spadefoot comprises two 

separately located discrete entities 

(northern and southern populations) 

that meet the condition of discreteness 

under our DPS Policy. 

Significance 

Under our DPS Policy, once we have 

determined that a population segment is 

discrete, we consider its biological and 

ecological significance to the larger 

taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to: (1) evidence of the 

persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting that is 

unusual or unique for the taxon, (2) 

evidence that loss of the population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon, (3) 

evidence that the population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historical range, 

or (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

We evaluated each discrete 

population segment to see if it meets the 

conditions of significance under our 

DPS Policy, and we have determined 

that the two entities are significant to 

the western spadefoot. 

The support for significance of the 

two DPSs is based, in part, on evidence 

that loss of either of these two 

population segments would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

The loss of either the northern or 

southern DPS would result in a 

substantial change in the overall range 

and distribution of the taxon. The loss 

of either the northern or southern DPS 

would shift the taxon’s range by nearly 

half, resulting in a loss of range of 

approximately 450 miles (mi) (725 

kilometers (km)) either north or south 

respectively. As a result, we have 

determined that the loss of the northern 

or southern DPS would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

The support for significance of the 

two DPSs is also based on evidence that 

the two DPSs differ markedly in their 

genetic characteristics, such that the 

loss of the northern or southern DPS 

would result in the loss of a discrete 

genetic clade. As discussed above, the 

two DPSs have been found to be 

genetically divergent and thus most 

likely contribute to the adaptive 

capacity of the taxon. This in turn may 

assist each DPS to adapt to both nearterm and long-term changes in its 

physical and biological environment, 

thereby maintaining its representation. 

As a result, we have determined that the 

loss of the northern or southern DPS 

would be significant in that they differ 

markedly in their genetic 

characteristics, which satisfies the 

criteria for significance under our DPS 

Policy. 

Distinct Population Segment Conclusion 

Our DPS Policy directs us to evaluate 

whether populations of a species are 

separate from each other to the degree 

that they qualify as discrete segments 

and whether those segments are 

significant to the remainder of the 

species to which they belong. Based on 

an analysis of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, we 

conclude that the northern and southern 

populations (clades) of the western 

spadefoot are discrete from each other 

due to their marked genetic and 

physical separation. Furthermore, we 

conclude that the two discrete 

population segments are significant, 

based on evidence that a loss of either 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon 

and on evidence that the discrete 

population segments differ markedly 

from each other in their genetic 

characteristics. Therefore, we conclude 

that the two populations (northern and 

southern) of western spadefoot are both 

discrete and significant under our DPS 

Policy and, therefore, qualify as DPSs, 

which are uniquely listable entities 

under the Act. 

Based on our DPS Policy, if a 

population segment of a vertebrate 

species is both discrete and significant 

relative to the taxon as a whole (i.e., it 

is a distinct population segment), its 

evaluation for endangered or threatened 

status will be based on the Act’s 

definition of those terms and a review 

of the factors enumerated in section 4(a) 

of the Act. Having found that the two 

populations (clades) of the western 

spadefoot meet the definition of being 

DPSs, we then evaluate the status of the 

two populations of western spadefoot to 

determine whether either one meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. The 

extent of the areas occupied by the two 

DPSs are within the historical range of 

the western spadefoot (Figure 1). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84258 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Description of Western Spadefoot 

Distinct Population Segments 

Below is a general description of the 

occupied extent of the northern DPS 

and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot. 

Northern DPS of the Western 

Spadefoot: The range of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot is entirely 

in California and includes the area of 

the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys 

from Shasta to Kern Counties including 

the lower elevation foothill areas of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains and lowelevation and valley areas in the 

northern Coast Range from Tehama 

County south to Santa Clara County. In 

the southwest portion of the northern 

DPS’s range, the occupied area extends 

from southern Santa Cruz County to 

southern Santa Barbara County of the 

Coast Range and is contiguous with the 

Central Valley portion of the DPS’s 

range. 

Southern DPS of the Western 

Spadefoot: The range of the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot includes 

areas in southern California and 

northwestern Baja California, Mexico. In 

the United States, this includes valleys 

and low-lying areas of portions of the 

Coast Range from extreme southeastern 

Santa Barbara County south to Ventura, 

Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, 

Riverside, and San Diego Counties. In 

Baja California, Mexico, this includes 

areas in the municipalities (municipio) 

of Tijuana and Playas de Rosarito, and 

portions of the municipalities of Tecate 

and Ensenada. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP05DE23.031</GPH>

OREGON 

N 0 

A 0 

25 50 

75 

n DPS of the 

defoot 

100 150 

NEVADA 

Miles 

Kilometers 

150 300 

Scale: 1 :8,000,000 

IDAHO 

UTAH 

ARIZONA 

Counties 

CJ States 

Ocean 

Figure 1: Distinct Population Segments of the Western Spadefoot 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84259 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. In 2019, jointly with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the Service issued a final rule that 

revised the regulations in 50 CFR parts 

424 regarding how we add, remove, and 

reclassify endangered and threatened 

species and the criteria for designating 

listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR 

45020; August 27, 2019). On the same 

day, the Service also issued final 

regulations that, for species listed as 

threatened species after September 26, 

2019, eliminated the Service’s general 

protective regulations automatically 

applying to threatened species the 

prohibitions that section 9 of the Act 

applies to endangered species (84 FR 

44753; August 27, 2019). 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define the foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

To assess the viability of the northern 

and southern DPSs of the western 

spadefoot, we used the three 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency is the 

ability of a species to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 

warm or cold years), redundancy is the 

ability of a species to withstand 

catastrophic events (for example, 

droughts, large pollution events), and 

representation is the ability of a species 

to adapt over time to both near-term and 

long-term changes in its physical and 

biological environment (for example, 

climate conditions, pathogens). In 

general, a species’ viability will increase 

with increases in resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Smith 

et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 

principles, we identified the western 

spadefoot’s ecological requirements for 

survival and reproduction at the 

individual, population, and species 

levels, and described the beneficial and 

risk factors influencing the two DPSs’ 

viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated each DPS’s lifehistory needs. The next stage involved 

an assessment of the historical and 

current condition of each DPS’s 

demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how each DPS arrived at 

its current condition. The final stage of 

the SSA involved making predictions 

about each DPS’s responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of each DPS to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84260 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the two 

DPSs. To assess the current and future 

condition of each DPS, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report for the western spadefoot. Our 

review of information in the SSA report 

reflects the acknowledgement of the 

separation between the northern and 

southern clades of the western 

spadefoot and provides information 

regarding each clade’s (DPS’s) current 

and future condition individually. The 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0095 on https://

www.regulations.gov and from the 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 

see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In the discussion below, we provide 

information on the species needs at the 

individual, population, and species 

level, the threats that are influencing the 

western spadefoot, and each DPS’s 

current and future condition at the 

individual, population, and DPS level as 

a result of the threats, to assess the 

overall viability and the risks to 

viability for both the northern and 

southern DPSs of the western spadefoot. 

To evaluate the individual and 

cumulative threats that influence the 

current and future condition and 

viability of the two DPSs in each of their 

respective analysis regions, we 

evaluated the habitat factors of (1) 

habitat quantity and distribution, (2) 

habitat quality, and (3) rainfall, and the 

demographic factor of abundance for 

each DPS. 

In determining potential future threats 

facing the northern and southern DPSs 

of the western spadefoot, we evaluated 

the existing threats and their magnitude 

or impact on each DPS. We then further 

evaluated the expected response of each 

DPS to those threats that we considered 

are driving the overall status of the two 

DPSs based on expected changes to the 

habitat and demographic factors 

identified above. 

Species Needs for the Western 

Spadefoot 

Below we discuss a summary of the 

information on the western spadefoot’s 

individual, population, and species 

needs. For additional information on the 

species’ needs see the SSA report 

(Service 2023, Chapter 7, pp. 12–22). 

Individual Needs 

The western spadefoot requires 

seasonal rains, aquatic breeding pools, 

appropriate terrestrial habitat, and food 

resources to fulfill its life history. The 

aquatic breeding pools and terrestrial 

habitat must be within dispersal 

distance of each other. The aquatic 

habitat includes water features such as 

vernal pools, ponds, ditches or other 

ponded surface waters with the 

appropriate temperature and 

hydroperiod for breeding and rearing 

young. The water features used by the 

species typically support inundation 

during the late fall to early spring 

depending on when precipitation events 

occur and hold water for a minimum of 

3 consecutive weeks. The appropriate 

water temperature for allowing 

development of eggs and tadpoles is 

between 9 and 30 °C (between 48 and 

86 °F). In addition, the western 

spadefoot requires the presence of 

upland habitat adjacent and accessible 

to the water features it uses for breeding 

and rearing. The dispersal distance 

required between upland refugia and 

aquatic habitat ranges and may be up to 

approximately 600 m (1,968 ft) with a 

mean dispersal distance of 40 m (131 ft) 

to 137 m (450 ft). The upland 

component is mostly associated with 

grassland or grassland/scrub vegetation 

on gently sloped landscapes with the 

appropriate soil makeup to allow for the 

species to create burrows and refugia 

during its active and inactive periods to 

avoid desiccation and provide cover. 

Other habitat or biological factors 

considered most significant for the 

western spadefoot include small 

invertebrate prey, and seasonal 

precipitation to fill aquatic habitat 

(November–May) (Service 2023, pp. 12– 

17). 

Population Needs 

At the population level, we used the 

best available information to assess the 

resources and circumstances that most 

influence the resiliency of western 

spadefoot populations. The population 

needs that we evaluate for this species 

are abundance, reproduction, and 

dispersal. 

Because information on the exact 

make-up of populations for the western 

spadefoot is lacking, we looked to the 

western spadefoot’s association with 

vernal pool habitat and the 

characteristics of vernal pools across the 

species’ range as a proxy for 

determining population information. As 

a result, we divided the range of the two 

DPSs of western spadefoot into several 

regions based on the habitat 

characteristics of vernal pools. These 

regions are based partly on the recovery 

units in the Recovery Plan for Vernal 

Pool Ecosystems of California and 

Southern Oregon (Service 2005, pp. I– 

9—I–12), which were developed using 

the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s California Vernal Pool 

Assessment Preliminary Report (KeelerWolf et al. 1998, pp. 12–15). The vernal 

pool regions are separated largely on the 

basis of endemic species, with soils and 

geomorphology as secondary elements, 

but with some overlap of these features 

among vernal pool regions. The regions 

in the southern DPS’s range were further 

refined by species experts to best 

capture the different habitat types where 

the western spadefoot is found across 

southern California and Mexico (Fisher 

pers. comm. 2020, entire). Although 

these regions do not encompass all 

western spadefoot occurrences, they 

capture the majority of the vernal pool 

habitat that is considered ideal for 

western spadefoot. In total, we 

identified 10 regions for the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot and 10 

regions for the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot (six in the United 

States and four in Mexico) (see Service 

2023, figure 8, p. 37). 

Population Abundance: Population 

abundance estimates do not exist for the 

western spadefoot throughout its range. 

This is partly because consistent 

rangewide population surveying has not 

been completed. Additionally, life 

history characteristics and dry-season 

dormancy makes it difficult to survey 

for the species except when breeding 

ponds are available (which may not be 

every year) and the species is active and 

above ground or by surveying for egg 

masses in aquatic habitat. State Natural 

Heritage occurrence data are available 

for the species in California along with 

limited survey information for Baja 

California, Mexico (McPeak 2000, p. 15; 

Grismer 2002, pp. 84–85; iNaturalist 

2020, unpaginated; Amphibian and 

Reptile Atlas 2023, entire; CNDDB 2023, 

entire); however, the occurrence 

information does not uniformly provide 

numbers of individuals or absence data. 

Even when the information is provided, 

it is variable in content and may be too 

broad and lacking site specifics, be 

opportunistic (i.e., roadside records), 

and not revisited. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84261 

Reproduction and Recruitment: 

Although reproduction and recruitment 

estimates are not available for the 

western spadefoot rangewide, we were 

able to obtain recent estimates on the 

effective number of breeders in a subset 

of the breeding pools throughout most 

but not all of the western spadefoot’s 

range (Neal 2019, pp. 95–165). The 

effective number of breeders is not a 

count of individuals; rather, it is the 

number of individuals that are 

contributing to the population size in a 

single cohort. Therefore, the effective 

number of breeders is a measurement of 

the relative reproduction and 

recruitment effort of the population and 

gives insight into habitat and resource 

conditions (Wang et al. 2011, p. 918) 

within the areas surveyed, at least in the 

near term. We used information from 

the above mentioned study (i.e., Neal 

2019, entire) and extrapolated it to 

develop rangewide estimates for both 

the northern and southern DPSs of the 

western spadefoot. This extrapolated 

information indirectly informed the 

potential demographic condition for the 

two DPSs. In order to do this, we 

averaged occurrence information across 

each region, which most likely 

overestimated abundance for the two 

DPSs. This overestimation was 

considered in our proposed listing 

determination for the two DPSs. See the 

SSA report for additional information 

(Service 2023, pp. 19, 20, 34–38). 

For the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot, the results of survey 

information identified the average 

effective number of breeders measured 

in multiple breeding pools to be near 5 

individuals (5.25, ranging from 2.3 to 

18.3) and for the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot, the average effective 

number of breeders was 4 individuals 

(ranging from 1.4 to 20.7) (Neal 2019, p. 

113). The required number of effective 

breeders for either DPS to reach 

population stability is unknown and 

information on the effective number of 

breeders for other species is lacking; 

however, we were able to compare the 

western spadefoot information with the 

black toad, another pond-breeding 

amphibian. The lowest estimation for 

effective number of breeders for the 

black toad ranged from 7 to 30 

individuals (Wang 2009, pp. 3852– 

3853). Very small effective population 

sizes (<50 individuals) have been 

observed in other amphibians (Funk et 

al. 1999, pp. 1633, 1637; Rowe and 

Beebee 2004, pp. 292–296; Wang 2009, 

p. 3848; Wang et al. 2011, p. 914; Wang 

2012, pp. 1033–1034; Richmond et al. 

2013, p. 815). It is unknown if the small 

effective number of breeders that were 

measured for the western spadefoot are 

due to: (1) small population size due to 

population reductions; (2) recent 

extreme drought years throughout the 

western spadefoot’s range; or (3) that the 

species has always had a low number of 

effective breeders per population. Our 

rangewide estimates for both the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot are similarly low and 

consistent with the information 

provided in the initial study (i.e., Neal 

2019, entire). 

Dispersal: Populations of western 

spadefoot need opportunities for 

dispersal and interbreeding among 

multiple well connected breeding pools 

(Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 1377–1393). 

Dispersal between breeding pools 

creates metapopulations that allow for 

gene flow, which is vital for preventing 

inbreeding (Neal et al. 2020, pp. 613– 

627), and allows for recolonization of 

areas (Halstead et al. 2021, p. 1378). 

Western spadefoots must disperse 

from their underground burrows to 

aquatic breeding habitat during the 

breeding season in order to reproduce. 

Seasonal precipitation is the 

environmental cue that initiates 

emergence and breeding dispersal to 

aquatic habitat (Dimmitt and Ruibal 

1980, p. 26). The dispersal distance for 

the species is variable and heavily 

dependent on the amount and timing of 

precipitation in a given year 

(Baumberger et al. 2020, pp. 1, 7–8). The 

maximum dispersal distance recorded 

for the western spadefoot is 605 meters 

(m) (1,985 feet (ft)) (Baumberger 2020, 

pers. comm.) with mean dispersal 

distances being 69 m (226 ft) to 137 m 

(450 ft) (Baumberger et al. 2020, p. 7; 

Service 2023 p. 19). After the breeding 

season, adults and juveniles must be 

able to return to their terrestrial habitat 

and occupy or create underground 

burrows for shelter during the hot, dry 

inactive period (approximately May– 

October). 

Species Needs 

At the species level, we consider the 

needs of the northern DPS and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot in terms 

of redundancy and representation. In 

the SSA report and this proposed rule, 

we evaluated the redundancy of the 

northern and southern DPSs of the 

western spadefoot by considering the 

number and distribution of sites 

occupied by each DPS within each 

region in relation to the scale of 

catastrophic events that are likely to 

occur. Having multiple populations that 

are interconnected and able to 

withstand stochastic events and are 

distributed in multiple areas throughout 

each of the regions in our analysis, 

would allow for each DPS to withstand 

catastrophic events and therefore have 

sufficient redundancy at the species 

level. 

Regarding representation, we consider 

the breadth of physical, ecological, and 

environmental diversity for the two 

DPSs based on their distribution within 

each geographic region. In general, these 

regions have broad distribution and the 

makeup of habitat within and between 

these regions encompass large physical, 

environmental, and climatic variability. 

These differences in conditions may 

influence temporal behaviors and may 

indicate genetic variability between 

geographic regions, which may help the 

two DPSs adapt to future environmental 

variability. Providing for each DPS of 

the western spadefoot with areas that 

represent the variation in climatic 

conditions and the unique biotic and 

abiotic features across each of the DPS’s 

specific range would provide for 

representation for each DPS at the 

species level. 

Threats Influencing the Current and 

Future Condition of the Western 

Spadefoot 

Below is a summary discussion of 

threats and our evaluation of the 

response to those threats as described 

and analyzed in the SSA report for the 

western spadefoot. The specific threats 

associated with each DPS are identified 

in the status discussion for each DPS 

below. For additional information on 

the threats, see the SSA report (Service 

2023, Chapters 8–10, pp. 22–82). 

Our assessment of current and future 

threats impacting the northern and 

southern DPSs of the western spadefoot 

identified habitat loss, habitat condition 

(fragmentation, degradation, or 

alteration), nonnative predators, disease, 

wildfire, chemical contaminants, noise 

disruptions, the effects from climate 

change, and their cumulative impacts. 

We also considered existing 

conservation efforts and how they may 

be ameliorating the current threats. The 

threats we identified as having the most 

impact and potentially driving the 

status of the two DPSs include: the 

effects to habitat (loss, degradation, 

alteration, or fragmentation) (Factor A) 

from urbanization or land conversion 

and the effects of climate change related 

to drought and increasing temperatures 

(Factor E). For a discussion of the 

threats of nonnative predators, disease, 

wildfire, chemical contaminants, and 

noise disturbance, please see the SSA 

report (Service 2023, pp. 22–32). 

In our assessment of the future threats 

impacting the two DPSs, we projected 

the main driving threats identified 

above out 30–40 years to approximately 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84262 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

mid-century (to 2060). We based this 

timeframe on information regarding the 

effects of climate change and expected 

human population growth. This 

timeframe represents estimates of midcentury climate projections and human 

population and development 

projections for California (The 

California Economic Forecast 2017, p. 2; 

Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 23). This 

timeframe also represents multiple 

generations (5 to 6) for the species as 

well multiple potential periods of severe 

drought conditions as based on recent 

past climate change trends. The current 

and future threats and their impact to 

the western spadefoot are summarized 

below. 

Habitat Loss 

Both the northern DPS and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot suffered 

dramatic habitat reductions in the mid 

to late 1900s when urban and 

agricultural development and water 

storage and delivery construction were 

rapidly destroying natural habitats in 

the Sacramento Valley, Central Valley, 

and southern California (Jennings and 

Hayes 1994, p. 96; Thomson et al. 2016, 

p. 134). This loss of habitat has been 

attributed as the predominant factor in 

the change from past abundance to the 

current fragmented distribution of the 

species (Morey 2005, p. 515). Although 

large-scale rapid loss of habitat has 

curtailed due to both a decrease in 

habitat conversion and implemented 

conservation efforts, we expect a low 

but persistent level of habitat loss from 

development and land conversion to 

continue to varying degrees within the 

range of the two DPSs in the future, 

especially near large, urbanized areas 

throughout the two DPSs’ ranges. 

Habitat Fragmentation, Degradation, or 

Alteration 

The latent effects of habitat loss 

described above have led to much of the 

remaining occupied western spadefoot 

habitat becoming fragmented or 

isolated. Encroachment on and 

bifurcation of western spadefoot habitat 

from urbanization, agriculture, roads, 

canals, and other human associated 

features and infrastructure have reduced 

the extent of upland habitat, restricted 

dispersal opportunities, altered 

hydrology of aquatic habitat, and 

increased anthropogenic effects (i.e., 

increased pollution, debris, human or 

pet access). Such impacts have limited 

the size of existing habitat and most 

likely reduced western spadefoot 

population abundance and distribution 

within the occupied areas. Small 

remnant areas may contain aquatic 

habitat with a shortened inundation 

period or provide less upland habitat, 

thereby reducing the needs of the 

western spadefoot (Shedd 2016, p. 20). 

In addition, the plant community 

within the grassland landscapes in 

California has dramatically changed 

since European settlement of the area 

(Burcham 1956, pp. 81–85). These 

changes resulted from numerous factors 

including the reduction of wetlands, 

changes to native herbivore abundance 

and distribution, reduction of wildfire, 

and changes in vegetation from mostly 

perennial grasslands to annual 

nonnative species (Barry et al. 2006, pp. 

7–9). Nonnative annual vegetation or 

overabundance of vegetation can 

degrade vernal pool habitat by intrusion 

into the ponded areas, increasing 

vegetative matter, or causing shortening 

of the hydroperiod of the pools (Clark et 

al. 1998, pp. 251–252; Marty 2005, pp. 

1626–1632). Over time, such 

degradation and alteration may cause 

vernal pool and other wetland habitats 

to be less productive or be lost as 

breeding habitat for the western 

spadefoot due to changes in 

environmental conditions, reduction in 

upland areas, or lack of management 

options to maintain and conserve such 

areas (Marty 2005, p. 1626; Service 

2005, pp. I–16–I–28, II–232–II–234; 

Vollmar et al. 2017, pp. 2–13). 

The Effects of Climate Change 

The effects of climate change impact 

numerous environmental conditions 

both directly and indirectly and include 

temperature, precipitation, wildfire 

frequency and intensity, sea-level rise, 

and drought conditions. In determining 

the effects of climate change on the 

western spadefoot, we looked at the 

impact of the effects of climate change 

as they relate to drought conditions and 

increased temperatures because these 

factors most likely impact the species’ 

aquatic habitat that is required for 

breeding and rearing purposes. 

Drought Conditions: Western 

spadefoots are dependent on the timing 

and amount of seasonal precipitation 

(precipitation patterns) as well as other 

environmental conditions for supplying 

both feeding and breeding resources for 

the species to meet its life-history 

requirements. Precipitation provides not 

only moisture for ponded habitat and 

prey but also cues western spadefoot to 

emerge from their underground 

burrows. In addition, the aquatic habitat 

must be a particular temperature and 

stay ponded during specific timeframes 

and length of time for western spadefoot 

reproduction to be successful (Service 

2023, pp. 29–30). 

California’s annual and seasonal 

precipitation patterns are extremely 

variable, and dry conditions are 

common (California Department of 

Water Resources 2021, entire). As 

discussed above and in the SSA report, 

western spadefoots are adapted to dry 

conditions by both behavioral and 

physiological characteristics (see 

Species and Habitat Information above 

and Chapter 5 in the SSA report 

(Service 2023, pp. 9–10). The U.S. 

Drought Monitor (a partnership of 

several Federal agencies and programs) 

gathers national precipitation 

information and categorizes normal and 

dry years (drought conditions) into six 

categories of increasing dryness and 

severity that includes: normal or wet 

conditions (None), abnormally dry 

(level D0), moderate drought (level D1), 

severe drought (level D2), extreme 

drought (level D3), and exceptional 

drought (level D4) (U.S. Drought 

Monitor 2023, entire). Within the last 15 

years, portions of California within the 

western spadefoot’s range have 

experienced extreme drought conditions 

(D3 conditions) in 2007–2009, 2012– 

2014, and again in 2020 and 2022 

(Williams et al. 2015, pp. 6823–6824; 

NOAA 2021a and 2021b, entire; 

California Department of Water 

Resources 2022, pp. 2–4) and 

exceptional drought conditions (D4 

conditions) in 2014–2016 and 2021 

(NOAA 2021a and 2021b, entire). 

Drought decreases the quality and 

quantity of aquatic breeding pools 

available for western spadefoots. 

Without aquatic breeding pools 

available, dispersal and reproductive 

opportunities are limited and may 

ultimately reduce the abundance of a 

population if those conditions continue 

over extended periods. Such drought 

conditions are expected to continue into 

the future (Diffenbaugh et al. 2015, pp. 

3931–3936; Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 

24–27). These recent extreme drought 

events (such as the 2012–2014 drought) 

may be a contributing factor to the 

currently estimated low effective 

number of breeders in western 

spadefoot populations (Williams et al. 

2015, pp. 6819, 6826; Neal 2019, p. 32). 

Although it is uncertain whether the 

species’ effective breeding population 

sizes will remain low or rebound from 

currently low levels, the lack of 

precipitation and the effects from severe 

droughts are a major driving threat and 

contribute to the current and future 

overall condition of the northern and 

southern DPSs of the western spadefoot. 

Increased Temperature: In California, 

as a result of climate change, the annual 

average temperatures have increased by 

about 0.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (1.5 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) since 1895, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84263 

with minimum temperatures rising 

nearly twice as fast as the maximum 

temperatures and the intensity, 

frequency, and duration of summer 

extreme heating events (heat waves) 

increasing since 1950 (Kadir et al. 2013, 

pp. 38, 48). 

As stated in the SSA report, the 

aquatic habitat for western spadefoots 

must be within a particular temperature 

range and maintain inundation for egg 

development, tadpole growth, and 

metamorphosis to be successful (Storer 

1925, p. 158; Burgess 1950, p. 49–51; 

Brown 1967, p. 746; Feaver 1971, p. 53; 

Morey 1998, p. 86; Service 2023, p. 13). 

Higher ambient temperatures can 

influence water temperatures and dry 

aquatic habitat sooner, thereby 

shortening the appropriate breeding 

season for the western spadefoot. 

The future effects of climate change 

will likely continue to cause increased 

temperatures throughout the range of 

both western spadefoot DPSs 

(Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 22). In 

California, statewide models project 

warming of an additional 2–4 °C (3.6– 

7.2 °F) (Representative Concentration 

Pathway (RCP) 4.5, medium-emissions 

scenario) to 4–7 °C (7.2–12.6 °F) (RCP 

8.5, high-emissions scenario) by the end 

of the century depending on future 

greenhouse gas emissions (Pierce et al. 

2018, pp. iv, 17–18). These mean annual 

changes in temperature will likely have 

impacts and be felt most strongly as 

extreme temperature events, which are 

predicted to increase (Pierce et al. 2018, 

pp. 18–19). The future impacts from 

increased temperatures would result in 

a continued negative impact on aquatic 

habitat, which may reduce 

opportunities for or result in a reduction 

in breeding success (by increasing water 

temperatures or reducing inundation 

periods) for the northern and southern 

DPSs of the western spadefoot. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Several vernal pool species (vernal 

pool crustaceans and plants) that occur 

within the range of both the northern 

and southern DPSs of the western 

spadefoot are listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

(Service 1998, p. 3; Service 2005, Table 

I–1, pp. I–4–I–7). The western spadefoot 

is included as a covered species in the 

2005 Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool 

Species (Service 2005, pp. II–220–II– 

235). In the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot’s range, the endangered Santa 

Barbara DPS (Service 2000, entire) and 

the threatened Central DPS (Service 

2004, entire) of the California tiger 

salamander (Ambystoma californiense), 

and the threatened California red-legged 

frog (Rana draytonii) (Service 1996, 

entire) are found. The California redlegged frog also occurs in portions of the 

range of the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot in southern 

California and Baja California, Mexico 

(Peralta-Garcia et al. 2016, pp. 168–170; 

Thomson et al. 2016, pp. 103–104). The 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW), on its Special Animals 

List, considers the western spadefoot as 

a priority ‘‘Species of Special Concern’’ 

with a global and State ranking as a 

vulnerable species (G3 and S3—at 

moderate risk of extinction due to a 

restricted range, relatively few 

populations (often 80 or fewer), recent 

and widespread declines, or other 

factors) (Thomson et al. 2016, p. 103; 

CDFW 2019, entire). 

As a result of these regulatory or 

recovery actions, a number of 

conservation efforts have been carried 

out directly and indirectly for the 

purpose of conserving and recovering 

listed vernal pool and amphibian 

species including the western spadefoot. 

Some of those conservation actions have 

included land acquisition and 

restoration for the purpose of protecting 

vernal pool and ponded habitat that is 

beneficial for the western spadefoot. A 

study of extant vernal pool habitat 

preserved within regions of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot found 

270,329 ac (109,398 ha) out of 764,862 

ac (309,529 ha) of extant vernal pool 

habitat (35 percent) protected in the 

northern DPS’s range (Vollmar et al. 

2017, pp. 1–14). In the southern DPS’s 

range in California, approximately 

157,554 ac (63,760 ha) of known 

western spadefoot habitat has been 

preserved out of approximately 306,782 

ac (124,151 ha) (approximately 51 

percent) (Service 2023, table 6). This 

conservation has been achieved in large 

part as a result of the land acquisition, 

protection, and restoration activities 

associated with Service-permitted 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and 

State natural community conservation 

plans (NCCPs) (CDFW 2015, entire). The 

HCPs and NCCPs within the range of the 

two DPSs provide mechanisms to 

balance wildlife conservation with 

development or other activities that may 

negatively impact sensitive species. 

Currently, 15 HCPs and 15 NCCPs (some 

are combined HCP/NCCPs) include 

western spadefoot as a covered species 

(5 HCPs are within the range of the 

northern DPS, and 10 HCPs are within 

the range of the southern DPS in 

California) (Service 2023, pp. 101–108, 

Appendix A). When looking at all the 

conservation efforts for the western 

spadefoot the number of populations 

occurring on managed preserves and 

considered conserved is 17 populations 

for the northern DPS and 102 

populations for the southern DPS. 

Approximately 17 percent of the habitat 

available to the northern DPS is 

conserved, compared to approximately 

50 percent for the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot (Service 2023, p. 62). 

Conservation activities that have been 

included in HCPs for the western 

spadefoot include habitat protection, 

light pollution minimization, erosion 

control of vernal pool habitat, work 

windows that avoid the reproductive 

season when western spadefoot are 

dispersing, exclusion fencing, 

entrapment avoidance, and monitoring. 

Several large-scale HCPs have been 

implemented and are currently 

protecting large areas of habitat for the 

western spadefoot. Two examples of 

large-scale HCPs in the range of the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

include the 2004 Western Riverside 

County Multi-Species HCP (MSHCP) 

(Dudek and Associates 2003, entire) and 

the 1998 South County HCP in San 

Diego County (San Diego County 1998, 

entire). These two HCPs cover areas in 

the western portion of the southern 

DPS’s range and help minimize the 

effects of urbanization, development, 

and other human activities as well as 

assist in maintaining populations of the 

southern DPS by establishing connected 

ecosystem preserves, controlling 

unauthorized access, monitoring habitat 

conditions, and maintaining and 

improving aquatic and upland habitat. 

Together, the two HCPs have 

established over 425,000 ac (171,992 ha) 

of preserve lands in the western portion 

of the southern DPS’s range. Although 

not all of the preserve land is used by 

the southern DPS, the preserve land 

they do occupy within the two HCP 

areas is well connected and provides 

both aquatic and upland habitat of high 

quality. 

For the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot several large-scale HCPs have 

also been implemented including the 

San Joaquin County Multi-Species 

Habitat Conservation and Open Space 

Plan (San Joaquin Co. Plan) (San 

Joaquin County 2000, entire), the South 

Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan 

(County of Sacramento et al. 2018, 

entire), and the Yolo HCP/NCCP (Yolo 

Habitat Conservancy 2018, entire). 

These plans cover areas in Central and 

Sacramento Valley portions of the 

northern DPS’s range (San Joaquin, 

Sacramento, and Yolo Counties) and 

help minimize the effects of 

urbanization, development, and other 

human activities as well as assist in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84264 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

maintaining populations of the northern 

DPS by establishing connected 

ecosystem preserves were possible, 

monitor habitat conditions, and 

maintain and improve aquatic and 

upland habitat for the northern DPS of 

the western spadefoot. The San Joaquin 

Co. Plan is the longest standing plan 

and has assisted in conserving 

approximately 20,196 ac (8,173 ha) of 

habitat including areas of vernal pools, 

seasonal wetlands, vernal pool 

grasslands, and foothill grasslands that 

are used by the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. The South 

Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan 

and Yolo HCP/NCCP are recently 

approved and implemented plans and 

the level of conservation is not to the 

extent of the San Joaquin Co. Plan, 

although some conservation within the 

two plan areas has been implemented 

and previously established preserves 

(outside of the planning efforts) within 

the plan areas do protect and conserve 

habitat used by the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot, especially in areas 

occupied by other listed species such as 

the vernal pool fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool 

tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), 

and California tiger salamander. 

In addition to HCPs, several 

Department of Defense (DOD) facilities 

are within the range of both the 

northern and southern DPSs of the 

western spadefoot, and these 

installations have developed integrated 

natural resources management plans 

(INRMPs) that help guide management 

of natural resources in a manner 

consistent with sustainability of natural 

resources. Conservation measures 

within the INRMPs are included 

specifically for western spadefoot or for 

vernal pool habitat that western 

spadefoots use. The DOD facilities 

associated with western spadefoot in the 

northern DPS’s range include the U.S. 

Army facilities of Fort Hunter Liggett in 

Monterey County (DOD 2022b, entire), 

and Camp Roberts in Monterey and San 

Luis Obispo County (DOD 2022a, entire) 

and Vandenberg Space Force Base in 

Santa Barbara County (DOD 2015, 

entire; DOD 2021, entire). The measures 

being implemented by these facilities 

are assisting to protect and conserve 

habitat and are assisting in providing 

localized connectivity of habitat and 

redundancy of habitat in areas under 

DOD jurisdiction. 

The DOD facilities in the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot’s range 

include areas in San Diego County 

associated with Marine Corp Base Camp 

Pendleton in the Coastal Military Land 

Region. The Base occupies 

approximately 125,000 ac (50,586 ha) in 

northwestern San Diego County. 

Surveys conducted in 2013 detected the 

southern DPS at 70 locations across the 

Base. Conservation measures being 

implemented to conserve the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot include: 

management and control of nonnative 

species; erosion control; education and 

training; habitat restoration, creation, 

and enhancement; off-road vehicle 

restrictions in sensitive areas; survey 

and monitoring; use adaptive 

management based on the best available 

science; and avoidance and 

minimization measures (MCB Camp 

Pendleton INRMP, DOD 2018, pp. N– 

69–N–70). The measures being 

implemented by these facilities are 

assisting to protect and conserve habitat 

and are assisting in providing localized 

connectivity of habitat and redundancy 

of habitat in areas under DOD 

jurisdiction. 

However, conservation of habitat 

alone by HCPs and INRMPs or through 

other regulatory mechanisms would not 

reduce the impacts associated with 

increased temperatures or drought 

associated with the effects of climate 

change on the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot. 

Current Conditions 

We describe the current condition of 

the two DPSs of the western spadefoot 

by characterizing their status in terms of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation by analyzing the impact 

of both threats and conservation efforts 

on each DPS’s individual and 

population needs. Our analysis of the 

current condition of the two DPSs is 

limited to the available records of 

observations for the species, the habitat 

quantity and quality in the areas they 

occur, the availability of dispersal 

between populations, the magnitude 

and distribution of threats across the 

landscape acting on each DPS, and the 

number of effective breeders estimated 

for areas for which data were available. 

In our analysis of the recorded 

observations of the species, we reviewed 

those more recent records from 1980 to 

present to eliminate older records. In 

our analysis, we grouped occurrences 

within each of our defined geographic 

regions for each DPS. Regions with 

greater percentage of occupancy were 

considered to be able to better withstand 

any negative environmental or 

demographic stochastic events. Recent 

research has determined that habitat 

within a 2,000-m (6,562-ft) buffer of a 

spadefoot occurrence in the northern 

clade, and 1,000-m (3,281-ft) buffer in 

the southern clade, is the best predictor 

of habitat use for the two DPSs (Rose et 

al. 2020, p. 1; Rose et al. 2022, p. 9). To 

assess habitat quality, we reviewed the 

amount of grassland or shrub/scrub 

habitat within these predicted use areas. 

Because the species is dependent on 

seasonal precipitation patterns to fill 

and pond aquatic habitat for breeding 

and rearing, we evaluated the number of 

average precipitation seasons over a 

lifespan of an individual (approximately 

6 years). By looking at this timeframe, 

we would be able to assess if an 

individual would have the opportunity 

to reliably breed and reproduce during 

its lifetime. However, as discussed 

above, the species is adaptable and is 

able to use nontraditional habitat such 

as roadside ditches, waterfilled 

depressions, and ponded intermittent 

stream habitat as well as their preferred 

vernal pool habitat. Finally, we looked 

at information regarding the number of 

effective breeders at various locations 

where that information was available for 

the two DPSs to assist in determining 

abundance (see Reproduction and 

Recruitment above and Service 2023, 

pp. 19–20, section 7.2.3 Abundance). In 

areas that did not have information on 

the effective number of breeders, we 

looked to areas that were adjacent or 

had similar habitat and environmental 

conditions and qualitatively made our 

assessment for that region. Due to the 

limited information on occurrence 

records in Mexico, we looked to the 

species’ occurrence information and 

relative degree of threats for the areas 

where they occur. Although the number 

of effective breeders required to support 

populations of the species at any given 

location is unknown, we considered 

those regions with higher numbers to be 

in better condition than those with 

lower numbers. To determine the 

overall current condition of the species 

in a region, we assessed the number and 

distribution of records of the species, 

habitat quantity/distribution, habitat 

quality, precipitation, and abundance 

together in our analysis. 

Western Spadefoot Northern DPS— 

Current Condition 

As discussed above, we divided the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

into 10 regions. We evaluated the 

condition of each region individually 

and then determined the overall current 

condition of the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot by combining our 

results for each region. Below we 

provide a summary of the current 

condition of the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. 

Current Resiliency. As discussed in 

the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 39– 

46), because we have limited 

information on long-term population 

trends for the DPS, we evaluated the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84265 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot’s 

resiliency as a function several factors 

including habitat quantity and 

distribution, habitat quality, 

precipitation and whether it provides 

for sufficient aquatic habitat over time, 

and estimated abundance based on the 

effective number of breeders, as 

discussed above. 

In reviewing the habitat conditions for 

the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot, we found that, in the 10 

regions we identified in our analysis, 

the majority (8 of 10) had large amounts 

of habitat that was well distributed 

throughout each region. The habitat 

quality for the regions varied 

geographically, with the regions 

associated with urbanized or fragmented 

habitat areas on the valley floor in low 

condition, and the regions located away 

from urbanized areas within higher 

elevation foothills of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains or Coast Range having 

moderate or high quality habitat 

conditions. The rainfall or precipitation 

factor that we used in our analysis to 

account for the availability of aquatic 

habitat varied from high to moderate 

depending on the region’s geographic 

distribution from north to south 

respectively, with those regions in the 

north having higher rainfall conditions. 

The demographic factor of abundance 

estimated by the effective number of 

breeders was found to be equally low for 

all regions and resulted in an overall 

current resiliency for the 10 regions to 

be either in low-moderate or low 

condition with 6 in low and 4 in lowmoderate condition (Service 2023, pp. 

32–48, table 3). However, as discussed 

above, the estimates for effective 

number of breeders is based on limited 

information and is considered very low 

when compared to other species and 

may either be a result of that incomplete 

information or that the species exhibits 

this life history trait and is able to 

maintain populations on the landscape 

despite low abundances. Based on the 

DPS’s habitat factors being relatively 

high, all regions having recent 

occurrence records with evidence of 

breeding and recruitment, and the DPS 

being able to at least maintain 

populations throughout its historical 

range despite the latent impacts of 

habitat loss and current threats facing 

the DPS, we have determined that 

overall the populations of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot currently 

have sufficient resiliency to withstand 

population-level stochastic 

disturbances. 

Current Redundancy. The northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot, despite 

habitat loss and fragmentation, is well 

distributed with approximately 160 

local populations occupying areas 

throughout its historical range and in 

the regions that we identified for our 

analysis. Many of the areas occupied are 

also part of large-scale (county-wide) 

habitat conservation efforts or located 

on military installations (Camp Roberts, 

Fort Hunter Liggett, and Vandenberg 

Space Force Base), which have 

management plans in place to protect 

the DPS and its habitat. Other conserved 

and protected areas where the species 

occurs are located throughout the range 

of the DPS. As a result, the DPS 

currently has a sufficient number and 

distribution of populations to be able to 

spread the risk among multiple 

populations to minimize the potential 

loss of the DPS from catastrophic 

events. Therefore, we consider the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to currently have sufficient redundancy. 

Current Representation. The northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot is 

distributed within the 10 regions 

identified in our analysis. As discussed 

above, we identified our analysis 

regions partly on the vernal pool regions 

identified by the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife’s California Vernal 

Pool Assessment Preliminary Report 

(Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998, pp. 12–15). 

These regions define vernal pool habitat 

largely on the basis of ecological 

characteristics, endemic species, soils, 

and geomorphology, and species 

occupying these habitats are uniquely 

adapted to the characteristics of the 

habitat where they occur. Because the 

DPS still maintains its distribution 

within all regions identified, we would 

expect the DPS to have sufficient 

ecological diversity and be able to adapt 

to the various environmental conditions 

it currently faces in the regions it 

occurs. Therefore, we consider the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to currently have sufficient 

representation. 

Western Spadefoot Southern DPS— 

Current Condition 

The current distribution of the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

in California and Mexico is similar to its 

historically occupied range except for 

the areas associated with the heavily 

urbanized areas of the Los Angeles 

basin, San Diego County, Taiquana, 

Mexico, and other heavily developed 

areas along the California and Baja 

California coast (Service 2023, pp. 7–8). 

Recent occurrence information in Baja 

California, Mexico, has identified 

additional occurrence records 

throughout the historically occupied 

range of the species in Mexico 

(Amphibian and Reptile Atlas of 

Peninsular California 2023, entire). 

Based on this information, we consider 

that the DPS to have numerous well 

distributed populations consisting of 

recent (2018–2023) records (Amphibian 

and Reptile Atlas 2023, entire; CNDDB 

2023, entire). 

Current Resiliency. As discussed 

above, we have limited information on 

long-term population trends and 

abundance information for the species. 

As a result, we evaluated the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot’s current 

resiliency as a function of habitat 

quantity/distribution, habitat quality, 

precipitation, and demographic factors. 

In reviewing the habitat for the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot, 

we found that 9 of 10 regions have 

sufficient quantity of habitat that is well 

distributed throughout each region. As a 

result we categorized the habitat 

quantity and distribution to be high. 

The remaining region (Baja Central) is 

categorized as having low habitat 

quantity and distribution because of the 

limited information on the known 

populations in the regions and the 

makeup of their habitat. However, one 

population in Baja California is 

surrounded by habitat that is comprised 

of more than 80 percent grassland or 

scrub/shrub habitat (high category). As 

discussed above, recent information has 

identified additional occurrence records 

in the region and these records, based 

on our evaluation of aerial imagery, 

occur mostly in areas of suitable habitat 

type and are located away from 

development (Amphibian and Reptile 

Atlas 2023, entire). 

The habitat quality in 7 of 10 regions 

is high with 3 in the low category. The 

3 regions in low occur in Baja 

California, Mexico (Baja Northwest, Baja 

Central, and Baja South) because the 

percentage of grassland or scrub/shrub 

habitat within a recommended distance 

from some of the occurrence locations is 

below the threshold for this species—80 

percent. However, although specific 

habitat information is not available, a 

review of the aerial imagery associated 

with the recent Baja California records 

identifies large portions of open 

grassland or shrub/scrub habitat type, 

but the exact type is uncertain. The 

rainfall or precipitation factor 

attributing to the likelihood of ponded 

habitat being available in each region 

was considered moderate based on 

precipitation patterns being relatively 

uniform across the 10 geographic 

regions. 

The demographic factor of abundance 

estimated by the effective number of 

breeders was considered low for all 

regions except the Baja Central and Baja 

South Regions in Mexico, which we 

identified as unknown. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84266 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

demographic factor of abundance 

estimated by the effective number of 

breeders was found to be equally low for 

all regions and resulted in an overall 

current resiliency for 7 of 10 regions to 

be low-moderate and 1 region in low 

condition (Service 2023, pp. 50–56, 

table 4). However, as discussed above, 

the estimates for effective number of 

breeders is based on limited information 

and is considered very low when 

compared to other species and may 

either be a result of that incomplete 

information or that the species exhibits 

this life history trait and is able to 

maintain populations on the landscape 

despite low abundances. Based on the 

DPS’s habitat factors being relatively 

high, all regions having recent 

occurrence records with evidence of 

breeding and recruitment, the reduction 

of threats due to conservation efforts 

(see redundancy below), and the DPS 

being able to at least maintain 

populations throughout its historical 

range despite the latent impacts of 

habitat loss and current threats facing 

the DPS, we have determined that 

overall, the populations of the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot currently 

have sufficient resiliency to withstand 

population-level stochastic 

disturbances. 

Current Redundancy. The southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot, despite 

habitat loss and fragmentation, is well 

distributed with more than 300 local 

populations currently extant and 

occupying all areas throughout its 

historical range. Many of the areas 

occupied are also part of large-scale 

(county wide) habitat conservation 

efforts (10 HCPs that identify the 

southern DPS as a covered species) that 

have conserved approximately 51 

percent of available habitat for the DPS 

(Vollmar et al. 2017, pp. 1–14) or 

located on military installations (Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton), which 

have management plans in place to 

protect the DPS and its habitat. Other 

conserved and protected areas where 

the DPS occurs are located throughout 

the range of the DPS. As a result, the 

DPS currently has a sufficient number 

and distribution of populations to be 

able to spread the risk among multiple 

populations to minimize the potential 

loss of the DPS from catastrophic 

events. Therefore, we consider the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to currently have sufficient redundancy. 

Current Representation. The southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot is 

distributed within the 10 regions 

identified in our analysis. As discussed 

above, we identified our analysis 

regions partly on the vernal pool regions 

identified by the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife’s California Vernal 

Pool Assessment Preliminary Report 

(Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998, pp. 12–15) as 

well as species expert information. 

Because the DPS still maintains its 

distribution within all the regions 

identified, we would expect the DPS to 

have sufficient ecological diversity and 

be able to adapt to the various 

environmental conditions it currently 

faces based on the variable ecological 

regions in which it occurs and its 

adaptability of aquatic habitat it uses for 

breeding. Therefore, we consider the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to currently have sufficient 

representation. 

The latent effects and current impacts 

from urbanization have resulted in a 

reduction and fragmentation of the 

southern DPS’s habitat, thereby 

reducing connectivity between occupied 

areas and isolating populations. Recent 

severe multi-year drought conditions 

have impacted aquatic habitat across the 

DPS’s range, limited breeding 

opportunities, and most likely 

contributed to the limited number of 

breeders being currently estimated for 

the DPS. However, our review of the 

DPS’s current condition has found that 

the currently extant populations 

frequently occur in clusters of highquality grassland and scrubland habitat 

that is within close proximity. Having 

numerous well distributed populations 

in high-quality aquatic and upland 

habitat will assist in reducing the 

impacts of drought. This gives the DPS 

the opportunity for dispersal and 

provides demographic connectivity. In 

addition, extensive habitat management 

in place through HCPs and INRMPs has 

been implemented, which assists in 

offsetting the effects of past habitat loss 

by protecting both the aquatic and 

upland estivation habitat as well as 

connectivity between such features. 

Because the DPS has more than 300 

currently extant populations that are 

well distributed on the landscape and 

occur in high quality aquatic and 

upland habitat and many of these areas 

having substantial in-place and ongoing 

conservation and management to assist 

in protecting, conserving, and 

maintaining habitat availability, 

distribution, and quality for the DPS, we 

consider that the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot to currently have 

sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. 

Future Conditions 

Below we provide information on the 

future condition of the northern DPS 

and the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot. 

Western Spadefoot Northern DPS— 

Future Condition 

As discussed in the SSA report, to 

assist in our analysis of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot’s future 

condition, we developed three plausible 

future scenarios based on differing 

emission projections and threat levels 

(RCP 4.5, RCP 8.5 with a continued 

threat level, and RCP 8.5 with increased 

threat levels) looking out approximately 

30–40 years (Service 2023, chapter 10, 

pp. 57–82). This range represents 

estimates of mid-century climate 

projections and human population 

growth and development projections for 

California (The California Economic 

Forecast 2017, p. 2; Bedsworth et al. 

2018, p. 23; California Department of 

Finance 2023, entire). Emission 

projections and their effects on climatic 

conditions are projected to at least the 

year 2100 (approximately 75 years). 

However, the timeframe we can 

reasonably predict the western 

spadefoot’s response to these changing 

climate conditions is shorter due to the 

lifespan of the species and uncertainties 

associated with localized climate 

conditions. As a result, our foreseeable 

future is considered to extend to 

approximately the year 2060. This 

timeframe considers both environmental 

(the effects of climate impacts) and 

human use impacts (effects from habitat 

loss, fragmentation, degradation, and 

alteration) as we can reasonably predict 

the two DPS’s response to these threats 

into the future. Scenario 1 includes an 

emission threshold of RCP 8.5 with 

increasing threats associated with 

development and drought. Scenario 2 

includes a continuation of existing 

threats at their current magnitude under 

an RCP 8.5 emission threshold. This 

would result in decreases in habitat 

quality and increase of the effects of 

climate change. Scenario 3 includes 

threats following an RCP 4.5 emission 

threshold that would also cause a 

decrease in habitat quality and increase 

of the effects of climate change but at 

lower levels (Service 2023, pp. 61, table 

5). 

As stated above, the current 

populations of the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot still occur throughout 

their historical range although the 

habitat has been fragmented and some 

populations are isolated and are most 

likely small with limited effective 

population sizes. In the future, drought 

conditions are expected to become more 

frequent and be of higher intensity and 

duration. The future condition that is 

consistent across all three scenarios is 

increasing effects of climate change 

(drought, increased temperatures), with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84267 

impacts only varying by degree. These 

impacts would most likely affect the 

DPS’s aquatic habitat and its ability 

breed and reproduce and result in 

additional reductions in population 

size. Although the western spadefoot is 

adapted to variable environmental 

conditions such as drought, extended 

drought periods may become more 

frequent and may increase the 

timeframe between successful breeding 

events, which in some cases may be 

beyond the life expectancy of adults. 

This would lead to a reduction in 

population size and may extirpate 

smaller populations or those occupying 

degraded or fragmented habitat. Human 

population growth and the effects of 

urbanization are expected to continue in 

the future and would further fragment 

and degrade habitat, reduce population 

connectivity, and result in additional 

population declines across the 

approximately 160 current local 

populations. Potential extirpations of 

populations of the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot from regions would 

result in fewer populations to maintain 

redundancy and thereby compromise 

the DPS’s ability to withstand even 

localized catastrophic events. The loss 

of populations may also result in a 

decline of genetic diversity or 

occupancy in the variable ecological 

settings where it currently occurs 

thereby reducing the representation of 

the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot. 

Western Spadefoot Southern DPS— 

Future Condition 

Our method for analyzing the future 

condition of the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot is the same as for the 

northern DPS. As stated above, the 

current populations of the southern DPS 

of the western spadefoot have been 

fragmented and are isolated and are 

most likely small with a limited number 

of expected breeders. Increasing effects 

of climate change in the future (drought, 

increased temperatures) are projected 

across all three future scenarios, 

affecting the DPS’s aquatic habitat and 

its ability to breed and reproduce, 

resulting in additional reductions in 

population size. More frequent, 

extended drought periods may be 

beyond the life expectancy of adults. 

This would lead to reductions in 

population sizes and may extirpate 

smaller populations or those occupying 

degraded or fragmented habitat. In the 

future, we would expect the impacts 

from largescale habitat loss due to 

urbanization or other land use 

conversion to be diminished due to 

conservation efforts associated with 

HCPs and INRMPs. However, we expect 

the effects of climate change associated 

with drought to increase. Reductions in 

resiliency and/or extirpation of 

populations of the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot would result in fewer 

populations to maintain redundancy, 

compromising the DPS’s ability to 

withstand catastrophic events. The loss 

of populations may also result in a 

decline of genetic diversity or 

occupancy in the variable ecological 

settings where it currently occurs, 

reducing representation of the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot into the 

future. 

Determination of Western Spadefoot 

Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Determination of Status for the 

Northern DPS and Southern DPS of the 

Western Spadefoot 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the northern DPS 

and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot and its habitat. Below we 

summarize our assessment of the 

current and future status of each DPS of 

the western spadefoot under the Act. 

Northern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

In our analysis of the northern DPS’s 

current status, we identified threats 

acting on the DPS to varying degrees, 

including impacts from development 

and urbanization (factor A), agricultural 

land conversion (factor A), chemical 

contaminants (factor E), nonnative 

predators (factor C), wildfire (factor A), 

noise disturbance (factor E), and the 

effects associated with climate change 

(most notably drought) (factor E). Of 

these threats, we identified habitat loss 

and degradation from urbanization 

(factor A) and the effects of climate 

change (factor E) mostly associated with 

severe drought as the major influences 

driving the current condition of the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot. 

Currently, the latent effects and 

current impacts from urbanization and 

other land conversion have resulted in 

a reduction, fragmentation, and 

degradation of the northern DPS’s 

habitat (both upland and aquatic), 

thereby reducing connectivity between 

occupied areas and isolating 

populations. Aquatic habitat used for 

breeding, reproduction, and rearing has 

been impacted by severe multi-year 

drought conditions across the DPS’s 

range and has limited breeding 

opportunities, and most likely 

contributed to the limited number of 

breeders estimated for the DPS. After 

evaluating threats to the northern DPS 

of the western spadefoot and assessing 

the cumulative effect of the threats 

under the Act’s section 4(a)(1) factors, 

we have determined that overall 

viability of the DPS has declined from 

historical levels. 

However, we find that currently the 

DPS: (1) maintains populations with 

sufficient resiliency to be able to 

withstand the environmental or 

demographic stochastic events currently 

impacting the DPS; (2) maintains 

sufficient redundancy to withstand the 

catastrophic impacts it is facing such as 

the effects of climate change associated 

with drought; and (3) maintains 

sufficient representation based on the 

breadth of its populations occurring in 

the variable and unique habitats where 

it is currently known to occur, thereby 

maintaining the breadth of 

environmental diversity within or 

between populations. 

The current viability of the DPS is 

based on (1) number and distribution of 

populations currently extant; (2) the 

amount, distribution, and quality of 

habitat currently available and used by 

populations of the DPS; (3) the current 

ability of the DPS to maintain its 

populations despite the existing threats; 

(4) and the amount of management, 

protections, and conservation currently 

afforded to the DPS through existing 

HCPs and INRMPs on military lands 

that have identified the western 

spadefoot or its habitat for conservation. 

Although we have concluded that 

impacts resulting from present-day 

threats are currently negatively affecting 

the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot, the DPS still has a sufficient 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84268 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

degree of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation. As such, after assessing 

the best available information, we 

conclude that the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot is not currently in 

danger of extinction. 

The main driving threats of increased 

frequency, magnitude, and duration of 

drought and latent and cumulative 

impacts of habitat loss (i.e., 

fragmentation, isolation, degradation) 

are expected to negatively affect the DPS 

into the future. Effects of climate change 

(drought, increased temperatures) are 

projected to increase across all three 

future scenarios in the next 30–40 years, 

affecting the DPS’s aquatic habitat and 

its ability breed and reproduce, 

resulting in additional reductions in 

population size. More frequent, 

extended drought periods may be 

beyond the life expectancy of adults. 

This would lead to reductions in 

population sizes and may extirpate 

smaller populations or those occupying 

degraded or fragmented habitat. In the 

future, human population growth and 

the effects of urbanization are expected 

to continue and would further fragment 

and degrade habitat, reduce population 

connectivity, and result in additional 

population declines across the range of 

the DPS. Reductions in resiliency and 

extirpation of populations of the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

would result in fewer populations to 

maintain redundancy, compromising 

the DPS’s ability to withstand 

catastrophic events. The loss of 

individuals and populations may also 

result in a decline of genetic diversity or 

occupancy in the variable ecological 

settings where it currently occurs, 

reducing representation of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot into the 

future. 

After evaluating threats to the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, as well as considering the 

conservation efforts currently in place, 

we find that populations of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot will 

continue to decline over the next 30–40 

years such that the northern DPS is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future due to increased 

frequency, intensity, and duration of 

drought conditions and impacts from 

continued human development, 

urbanization, and land use conversion. 

Thus, after assessing the best 

information available, we determine 

that the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot is not currently in danger of 

extinction but is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Northern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 

F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), 

vacated the provision of the Final Policy 

on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (hereafter ‘‘Final Policy’’; 79 

FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if 

the Services determine that a species is 

threatened throughout all of its range, 

the Services will not analyze whether 

the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the DPS is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

DPS’s range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the DPS is 

in danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the DPS’s range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether there 

are any significant portions of the DPS’s 

range where the DPS is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot, 

we choose to address the status question 

first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the DPS and the threats that the 

DPS faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the DPS may be 

endangered. 

We evaluated the range of the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to determine if the DPS is in danger of 

extinction now in any portion of its 

range. The range of a DPS can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. We focused 

our analysis on portions of the DPS’s 

range that may meet the definition of an 

endangered species. For the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the DPS are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

DPS’s range than in other portions such 

that the DPS is in danger of extinction 

now in that portion. 

We examined the following threats: 

habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, 

and isolation; nonnative species impacts 

(predation and competition); and the 

effect associated with climate change 

(increased temperature and severe 

drought), including cumulative effects. 

The impacts of these threats have 

affected and continue to impact the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot 

across it range. Past habitat loss due to 

wetland and upland losses from 

urbanization and land conversion for 

agricultural purposes has occurred 

uniformly throughout the range of the 

DPS. The remaining areas where the 

habitat remains and the DPS occurs are 

limited to isolated and disjunct 

fragments of a once interconnected and 

expansive ecosystem. Current impacts 

from urbanization and agricultural land 

conversion are still occurring but have 

decreased in extent and magnitude from 

the conversions that occurred through at 

least the mid-twentieth century. 

However, the latent effects from 

historical losses such as population 

isolation, habitat fragmentation, and 

loss of representation and redundancy 

continue to affect the DPS across its 

range. This situation is reflected by the 

DPS’s current distribution and 

occupancy in remnant grassland areas 

in the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Valleys and within low-elevation 

foothill areas of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains and Central Coast Range. 

In our analysis of the current 

resiliency of the 10 regions for the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot, 

the Solano-Colusa Region had the 

lowest resiliency score and was the only 

region to also have a low habitat 

quantity/distribution score. In a review 

of the other 9 regions, 8 of 9 regions had 

high habitat quantity/distribution scores 

with 1 region having a moderate habitat 

quantity/distribution score. We 

determined regions with high or 

moderate habitat quantity/distribution 

scores to be able to currently provide 

sufficient opportunities for the DPS to 

meet its life history needs and therefore 

withstand stochastic and catastrophic 

events. As a result, we further reviewed 

the DPS’s occurrence and habitat 

conditions in the Solano-Colusa Region 

to determine if the region may have a 

different status than the rest of the 

regions. 

The number of western spadefoot 

records in the Solano-Colusa Region is 

limited to 10 records (CNDDB 2023, 

entire) and mostly occur within natural 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84269 

grassland or low elevation foothills 

between the Coast Range and 

Sacramento Valley in northern Yolo and 

southern Colusa County west of 

Interstate 5 and the town of Dunnigan, 

California. The habitat surrounding 

most of the records is made up of 

agricultural croplands, but other records 

do occur surrounding the area in natural 

grassland habitat. The records are 

relatively recent (1990 to 2019) and are 

associated with ephemeral creeks, 

artificially ponded livestock ponds, and 

natural intermittently ponded habitat in 

the rolling grassland and oak woodland 

habitat (CNDDB 2023, entire). The 

California tiger salamander also cooccurs with the northern DPS in this 

concentrated area and records have been 

found in a similar timeframe (1990 to 

2017) (CNDDB 2023, entire). California 

tiger salamanders have similar life 

history and habitat requirements as the 

northern DPS of the western spadefoot. 

The California tiger salamander is a 

covered species within the Yolo HCP/ 

NCCP which has identified the area for 

conservation by protecting 2,000 ac (809 

ha) of upland habitat and approximately 

36 ac (15 ha) of aquatic habitat in the 

area. Additional conservation measures 

include the requirement of some State 

and local projects occurring in any 

identified conservation areas would 

require a biological impact assessment 

before implementation, mitigation of 

impacts from activities, restoration and 

management of habitat, and 

implementation of a survey and 

monitoring program (Yolo Habitat 

Conservancy 2018, pp. ES–21, ES–22, 

and 3–18, 3–19). Although the habitat 

requirements of the California tiger 

salamander and the northern DPS are 

not exact and threats acting on them 

may impact each entity differently, 

preservation and management of both 

aquatic and upland habitat will benefit 

the northern DPS of the western 

spadefoot in the Solano-Colusa Region. 

In our analysis of the current 

condition of populations and resiliency 

in the SSA report, we looked to the 

number of populations and their 

distribution and the percentage of 

grassland habitat surrounding each 

population (Service 2023, pp. 34–38). 

Given the low number of records, their 

distribution in mostly two populations, 

and the area mostly surrounded by 

agricultural lands, we identified the 

habitat factors for the region to be low. 

However, after considering the 

information above regarding occupancy 

over time and the conservation 

measures in place for both aquatic and 

upland habitat being used by the 

northern DPS, we have determined that 

the northern DPS in the Solano-Colusa 

Region has sufficient resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to 

currently maintain populations in the 

wild. 

Although within the Solano-Colusa 

Region, the biological condition of the 

DPS differs from its condition elsewhere 

in its range, the best scientific and 

commercial information available do 

not indicate that the threats, or the 

species’ responses to the threats, are 

such that the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot is currently in danger 

of extinction in the identified portion. 

Based on the discussion outlined above, 

we find that the Solano-Colusa portion 

of the northern DPS is not in danger of 

extinction now. 

Therefore, no portion of the northern 

DPS of the western spadefoot’s range 

provides a basis for determining that the 

DPS is in danger of extinction in a 

significant portion of its range, and we 

determine that the DPS is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. This determination does not 

conflict with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 

1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held to be invalid. 

Northern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

indicates that the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot meets the definition 

of a threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the northern DPS of the 

western spadefoot as a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Southern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the southern DPS 

of the western spadefoot and its habitat. 

Below we summarize our assessment of 

the current and future status of the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

under the Act. 

As stated above, some populations of 

the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot have been fragmented and are 

isolated and are most likely small with 

a limited number of effective breeders. 

However, our analysis of the current 

condition of the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot, as assessed in the 

SSA report, shows that populations of 

the DPS are well distributed with 

multiple populations across all the 

ecological settings within the DPS’s 

range. While threats are currently acting 

on the DPS at the individual level and 

many of those threats are expected to 

continue into the future, the main 

driving threats of habitat loss and the 

effects of climate change are not 

currently impacting the DPS as a whole 

across its range to the level to cause the 

DPS to not be able to sustain 

populations in the wild in the near 

term. The quality and distribution of 

occupied habitat for the southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot is considered 

high and we have determined that it 

will be able to support populations and 

withstand habitat loss impacts due to 

large areas being protected through 

HCPs and INRMPs and environmental 

impacts, including impacts from 

drought at least in the near term. This 

is reflected by the DPS’s current 

distribution and occupancy across more 

than 300 local populations despite 

previous long term and severe drought 

conditions. As a result, we do not find 

that the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot is currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

In the future, we would expect the 

latent impacts of habitat loss to continue 

and the effects of climate change 

associated with drought to increase. 

Effects of climate change in the future 

(drought, increased temperatures) are 

projected to increase across all three 

future scenarios in the next 30–40 years, 

affecting the DPS’s aquatic habitat and 

its ability breed and reproduce, 

resulting in additional reductions in 

population size. More frequent, 

extended drought periods may be 

beyond the life expectancy of adults. 

This would lead to reductions in 

population sizes and may extirpate 

smaller populations or those occupying 

degraded or fragmented habitat. In the 

future, we would expect the impacts 

from largescale habitat loss due to 

urbanization or other land use 

conversion to be diminished due to 

conservation efforts associated with 

HCPs and INRMPs. However, we expect 

the effects of climate change associated 

with drought to increase. Reductions in 

resiliency and/or extirpation of 

populations of the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot would result in fewer 

populations to maintain redundancy, 

compromising the DPS’s ability to 

withstand catastrophic events. The loss 

of populations may also result in a 

decline of genetic diversity or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84270 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

occupancy in the variable ecological 

settings where it currently occurs, 

reducing representation of the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot into the 

future. 

After evaluating threats to the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, as well as considering the 

conservation efforts currently in place, 

we find that populations of the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot will 

continue to decline over the next 30–40 

years such that the southern DPS is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future due to increased 

frequency, intensity, and duration of 

drought conditions and impacts from 

the past effects of development, 

urbanization, and land use conversion. 

Thus, after assessing the best 

information available, we determine 

that the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot is not currently in danger of 

extinction but is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Southern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Having determined that the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot is not 

currently in danger of extinction but 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range, we 

now consider whether any significant 

portion of the southern DPSs range may 

be in danger of extinction—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

DPS’s range for which it is true that both 

(1) the portion is significant; and (2) the 

DPS is in danger of extinction now in 

that portion. Depending on the case, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the ‘‘significance’’ question or the 

‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to 

address either question first. Regardless 

of which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the DPS’s range. 

In undertaking this analysis for the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot, 

we choose to address the status question 

first—we consider information 

pertaining to the geographic distribution 

of both the DPS and the threats that the 

DPS faces to identify any portions of the 

range where the DPS may be 

endangered. 

We evaluated the range of the 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

to determine if the DPS is in danger of 

extinction now in any portion of its 

range. The range of a DPS can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. We focused 

our analysis on portions of the DPS’s 

range that may meet the definition of an 

endangered species. For the southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot, we 

considered whether the threats or their 

effects on the DPS are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

DPS’s range than in other portions such 

that the DPS is in danger of extinction 

now in that portion. 

For the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot, we examined the following 

threats: habitat loss, degradation, 

fragmentation, and isolation; nonnative 

species impacts (predation and 

competition); and the effect associated 

with climate change (increased 

temperature and severe drought), 

including cumulative effects. The 

impacts of these threats have and 

continue to impact the southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot across its range. 

Past habitat loss due to wetland and 

upland losses from urbanization and 

land conversion for agricultural 

purposes has occurred uniformly 

throughout the range of the DPS. The 

remaining areas where habitat remains 

and the DPS occurs are smaller in size 

and distribution, but still well 

distributed and often in clusters within 

dispersal distance of the DPS. 

In our analysis, we identified 7 

regions having low-moderate and 1 

region having low, and 2 regions within 

unknown overall resiliency. The two 

regions with unknown resiliency (Baja 

Central and Baja South) as well as the 

region with low resiliency (Baja 

Northwest) occur in Baja California, 

Mexico. Information on the exact 

population distribution and habitat for 

these areas is mostly lacking and our 

assessment of the southern DPS in these 

areas is mostly limited to occurrence 

information and a review of the areas 

they are found. Recent survey 

information has identified numerous 

occurrence records that are well 

distributed throughout the DPS’s range 

in Baja California and the limited 

review of habitat conditions associated 

with these records shows that the 

majority of records are in areas 

associated with grassland or shrub/ 

scrub habitat. Based on the best 

available information, we find that the 

habitat quantity and distribution within 

the Baja Northwest Region is high. 

Considering this and the recent 

occurrence records bolstering our 

knowledge of the distribution and 

occupancy of the DPS in these 3 regions, 

we do not consider the biological 

condition of the DPS to differ from its 

condition elsewhere in its range. As a 

result, the best scientific and 

commercial information available do 

not indicate that the threats, or the 

DPS’s response to the threats, are such 

that the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot is currently in danger of 

extinction in the identified portions. 

Based on the discussion outlined above, 

we find that the DPS is not in danger of 

extinction now in the 3 identified 

regions. 

Despite historical and current threats 

to the southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot, the southern DPS continues 

to maintain its distribution and extent 

throughout its range in the various 

ecological settings known for the DPS. 

In addition, many of these areas 

currently have substantial in-place and 

ongoing conservation and management 

to assist in protecting, conserving, and 

maintaining habitat availability, 

distribution, and quality for the 

southern DPS. 

As a result, we found no biologically 

meaningful portion of the southern DPS 

of the western spadefoot’s range where 

threats are impacting individuals 

differently from how they are affecting 

the DPS elsewhere in its range, or where 

the biological condition of the DPS 

differs from its current condition 

elsewhere in its range such that the 

status of the DPS in that portion differs 

from any other portion of the DPS’s 

range. 

Therefore, we find that the species is 

not in danger of extinction now in any 

significant portion of its range. This 

does not conflict with the courts’ 

holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 

3d 1011, 1070–74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and 

Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 

248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held to be invalid. 

Southern DPS of the Western Spadefoot: 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

indicates that the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot meets the definition 

of a threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot as a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84271 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 

organizations, and individuals. The Act 

encourages cooperation with the States 

and other countries and calls for 

recovery actions to be carried out for 

listed species. The protection required 

by Federal agencies, including the 

Service, and the prohibitions against 

certain activities are discussed, in part, 

below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process 

consists of preparing draft and final 

recovery plans, beginning with the 

development of a recovery outline. 

However, because the western spadefoot 

has already been included in the 

Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool 

Ecosystems of California and Southern 

Oregon (Service 2005, entire), providing 

an outline and planning and drafting a 

plan is not necessary. The recovery plan 

uses an ecosystem approach on 

protecting and conserving vernal pool 

ecosystems and identifies goals, 

objectives, strategies, and criteria for 

conserving vernal pool species and their 

habitat and prioritizes certain tasks or 

measures in core areas and areas outside 

of those areas. The specific criteria for 

western spadefoot to be considered 

conserved is when 80 percent of the 

occurrences of the species are protected 

and 85 percent of the habitat within 11 

of 15 vernal pool regions where it 

occurs is also protected. In reviewing 

the criteria for western spadefoot 

conservation in the recovery plan 

(Service 2005, pp. III–87—III–112), we 

have determined that these criteria have 

not been met to date. The final recovery 

plan is available on our website (http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

As stated above, the western 

spadefoot has already been included in 

the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool 

Ecosystems of California and Southern 

Oregon (Service 2005, entire) and 

conservation measures have been 

identified for the species and its habitat. 

As a result, funding for conservation 

actions will continue to be available for 

both the northern DPS and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot from a 

variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State of California would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

survey and monitoring actions for the 

western spadefoot and implement 

conservation actions identified in the 

State’s Wildlife Action Plan funded 

through State Wildlife Grants for the 

western spadefoot as the species is 

considered a species of greatest 

conservation need by the State. 

Information on our grant programs that 

are available to aid species recovery can 

be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants. 

We invite you to submit any new 

information on the northern DPS or 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7 of the Act is titled 

Interagency Cooperation and mandates 

all Federal action agencies to use their 

existing authorities to further the 

conservation purposes of the Act and to 

ensure that their actions are not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action which is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species proposed to be listed under 

the Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

proposed to be designated for such 

species. Although the conference 

procedures are required only when an 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification, action agencies 

may voluntarily confer with the Service 

on actions that may affect species 

proposed for listing or critical habitat 

proposed to be designated. In the event 

that the subject species is listed or the 

relevant critical habitat is designated, a 

conference opinion may be adopted as 

a biological opinion and serve as 

compliance with section 7(a)(2). 

Examples of actions that may be 

subject to the conference and 

consultation procedures under section 7 

processes are land management or other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management, Department of 

Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, and National Park 

Service as well as actions on State, 

Tribal, local, or private lands that 

require a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the local Service Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84272 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

CONTACT) with any specific questions on 

section 7 consultation and conference 

requirements. 

It is the policy of the Services, as 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify 

to the extent known at the time a 

species is listed, specific activities that 

will not be considered likely to result in 

violation of section 9 of the Act. To the 

extent possible, activities that will be 

considered likely to result in violation 

will also be identified in as specific a 

manner as possible. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Although most of the 

prohibitions in section 9 of the Act 

apply to endangered species, sections 

9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act 

prohibit the violation of any regulation 

under section 4(d) pertaining to any 

threatened species of fish or wildlife, or 

threatened species of plant, 

respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act 

directs the Secretary to promulgate 

protective regulations that are necessary 

and advisable for the conservation of 

threatened species. As a result, we 

interpret our policy to mean that, when 

we list a species as a threatened species, 

to the extent possible, we identify 

activities that will or will not be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of the protective regulations under 

section 4(d) for that species. 

At this time, we are unable to identify 

specific activities that will or will not be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of section 9 of the Act beyond what is 

already clear from the descriptions of 

prohibitions and exceptions established 

by protective regulation under section 

4(d) of the Act. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 

4(d) of the Act for the Northern DPS 

and Southern DPS of the Western 

Spadefoot 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary shall issue such 

regulations as she deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of species listed as 

threatened species. The U.S. Supreme 

Court has noted that statutory language 

similar to the language in section 4(d) of 

the Act authorizing the Secretary to take 

action that she ‘‘deems necessary and 

advisable’’ affords a large degree of 

deference to the agency (see Webster v. 

Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (1988)). 

Conservation is defined in the Act to 

mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting one or more 

of the prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the legislative history when the Act was 

initially enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on 

the threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to [her] with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. 

[She] may, for example, permit taking, 

but not importation of such species, or 

[she] may choose to forbid both taking 

and importation but allow the 

transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

The provisions of this proposed 4(d) 

rule would promote conservation of the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot by encouraging 

management of the habitat for the DPSs 

in ways that would facilitate their 

conservation. The provisions of this 

proposed rule are one of many tools that 

we would use to promote the 

conservation of the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot. 

This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 

only if and when we make final the 

listing of the northern DPS and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot as 

threatened DPSs. 

As mentioned previously in Available 

Conservation Measures, section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act requires Federal agencies, 

including the Service, to ensure that any 

action they fund, authorize, or carry out 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat of such 

species. In addition, even before the 

listing of any species or the designation 

of its critical habitat is finalized, section 

7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to confer with the Service on 

any agency action which is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species proposed to be listed under 

the Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

proposed to be designated for such 

species. 

These requirements are the same for 

a threatened species with a speciesspecific 4(d) rule. For example, as with 

an endangered species, if a Federal 

agency determines that an action is ‘‘not 

likely to adversely affect’’ a threatened 

species, it will require the Service’s 

written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 

Similarly, if a Federal agency 

determinates that an action is ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect’’ a threatened species, 

the action will require formal 

consultation with the Service and the 

formulation of a biological opinion (50 

CFR 402.14(a)). 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for 

the Northern DPS and Southern DPS of 

the Western Spadefoot 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 

developed a proposed rule that is 

designed to address the northern DPS 

and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot’s conservation needs. As 

discussed previously in Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, we have 

concluded that the two DPSs are likely 

to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future primarily 

due to impacts to habitat and the effects 

of climate change. Section 4(d) requires 

the Secretary to issue such regulations 

as she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of each 

threatened species and authorizes the 

Secretary to include among those 

protective regulations any of the 

prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act prescribes for endangered species. 

We find that, if finalized, the 

protections, prohibitions, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84273 

exceptions in this proposed rule as a 

whole satisfy the requirement in section 

4(d) of the Act to issue regulations 

deemed necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. 

The protective regulations we are 

proposing for the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

incorporate prohibitions from section 

9(a)(1) of the Act to address the threats 

to the two DPSs. Section 9(a)(1) 

prohibits the following activities for 

endangered wildlife: importing or 

exporting; take; possession and other 

acts with unlawfully taken specimens; 

delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. This protective regulation 

includes all these prohibitions because 

the northern DPS and southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot are at risk of 

extinction in the foreseeable future and 

putting these prohibitions in place will 

help to prevent further declines, 

preserve the two DPS’s remaining 

populations, slow their rate of decline, 

and decrease the cumulative negative 

effects from other ongoing or future 

threats. 

In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule 

would provide for the conservation of 

the northern DPS and southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot by prohibiting the 

following activities, unless they fall 

within specific exceptions or are 

otherwise authorized or permitted: 

importing or exporting; take; possession 

and other acts with unlawfully taken 

specimens; delivering, receiving, 

carrying, transporting, or shipping in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of commercial activity; or selling 

or offering for sale in interstate or 

foreign commerce. 

Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Some of these provisions have 

been further defined in regulations at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Regulating take would help preserve the 

DPS’s remaining populations, slow their 

rate of decline, and decrease cumulative 

effects from other ongoing or future 

threats. Therefore, we propose to 

prohibit take of the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot, 

except for take resulting from those 

actions and activities specifically 

excepted by the 4(d) rule. 

Exceptions to the prohibition on take 

would include all the general 

exceptions to the prohibition on take of 

endangered wildlife as set forth in 50 

CFR 17.21 and additional exceptions, as 

described below. 

The proposed 4(d) rule would also 

provide for the conservation of the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot by allowing 

exceptions that incentivize conservation 

actions or that, while they may have 

some minimal level of take of the two 

DPSs, are not expected to rise to the 

level that would have a negative impact 

(i.e., would have only de minimis 

impacts) on either of the DPS’s 

conservation. The proposed exceptions 

to these prohibitions include (1) 

activities associated with routine 

livestock ranching on private lands that 

provide and maintain breeding and 

upland habitats and maintain stock 

ponds; (2) implementation of livestock 

grazing as a tool in the course of 

vegetation management and to benefit 

the northern DPS or southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot in vernal pool 

landscapes; (3) landowner actions to 

maintain the minimum clearance of 

vegetation (defensible space) 

requirement of 100 feet (30 meters) from 

any occupied dwelling, occupied 

structure, or to the property line, 

whichever is nearer, to provide 

reasonable fire safety and to reduce 

wildfire risks to breeding and upland 

habitats of the western spadefoot and 

consistent with the State of California 

fire codes or local fire codes/ordinances; 

and (4) wildfire management actions 

(e.g., prescribed burns, hazardous fuel 

reduction activities, and maintenance of 

fuel breaks) to maintain, protect, or 

enhance habitat occupied by the 

northern DPS or southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. These exceptions as 

discussed below are expected to have 

negligible or beneficial impacts to the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot and its habitat. 

Routine livestock ranching activities, 

such as those conducted in California’s 

lower elevation foothill regions within 

the range of the northern DPS or 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

provide a substantial conservation 

benefit to the two DPSs. The 

conservation benefits provided by 

routine ranching activities include the 

establishment and maintenance of stock 

ponds that are often aquatic habitat for 

breeding and rearing of western 

spadefoot larvae and juveniles. The 

grazing of uplands by these ranching 

operations maintains grass and 

shrubland habitat from becoming 

overgrown and assists in adult western 

spadefoot’s establishment of burrows, 

provides access to better foraging 

opportunities, and allows for better 

movement and dispersal. Grazing 

operations not following standard best 

management practices for rangeland 

grazing practices to avoid overgrazing 

would not be part of this exception. By 

providing this exception, we are 

assisting in maintaining these ranching 

activities (and their benefits to the 

northern and southern DPSs of the 

western spadefoot) and avoiding 

potential conversion of these lands to 

incompatible uses such as urban 

development or agriculture. 

Implementing livestock grazing as a 

management tool to reduce nonnative 

annual vegetation in areas associated 

with vernal pools assists in maintaining 

the aquatic habitat and provides 

breeding and rearing opportunities to 

the northern DPS and southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot. Nonnative 

annual vegetation or overabundance of 

vegetation can degrade vernal pool 

habitat by intrusion into the ponded 

areas or cause shortening of the 

hydroperiod of the pools. Small 

remnant vernal pool areas used by the 

two DPSs are usually degraded or 

altered and may have a shortened 

inundation period or provide limited 

upland habitat, thereby not providing 

for the needs of the two DPSs. Removal 

and maintenance of excessive vegetation 

may assist these smaller vernal pool 

areas to continue to be productive and 

be used as breeding habitat for the two 

DPSs. 

In certain areas the use of fire and 

wildfire management such as prescribed 

burns, fuel reduction activities, and 

maintenance of fuel breaks (does not 

include use of heavy equipment such as 

bulldozers, backhoes, or tractors) may 

assist in protecting and maintaining 

habitat for the northern DPS or southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot. Similar to 

livestock grazing, prescribed fire actions 

and fuel reduction activities (vegetation 

removal), conducted outside the 

species’ active period, remove excessive 

vegetation and allow for maintenance of 

ponded habitat and better access for the 

two DPSs to upland areas. 

Establishing and maintaining required 

minimum vegetation clearance from 

dwellings or structures to reduce 

wildland fire risks to human life and 

property may assist in protecting and 

maintaining habitat for the northern 

DPS and southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot. This process includes 

activities necessary to maintain the 

minimum clearance (defensible space) 

requirement from any occupied 

dwelling, occupied structure, or to the 

property line, whichever is nearer, to 

provide reasonable fire safety and to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84274 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

reduce wildfire risks consistent with the 

State of California fire codes or local fire 

codes/ordinances. 

We find that the actions discussed 

above, taken by management entities in 

the range of the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

for the purpose of reducing the risk or 

severity of habitat degradation and 

designed to maintain or restore open 

habitat for the species, will further the 

goal of reducing the likelihood of the 

two DPSs from becoming endangered 

species and will also continue to 

contribute to their conservation and 

long-term viability. We therefore 

establish that the prohibitions under 

section 4(d) of the Act for the protection 

of these two DPSs do not apply to such 

actions. 

Despite these prohibitions regarding 

threatened species, we may under 

certain circumstances issue permits to 

carry out one or more otherwiseprohibited activities, including those 

described above. The regulations that 

govern permits for threatened wildlife 

state that the Director may issue a 

permit authorizing any activity 

otherwise prohibited with regard to 

threatened species including permits 

issued for scientific purposes, to 

enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for zoological 

exhibition, for educational purposes, for 

incidental taking, or for special 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The statute 

also contains certain exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist us in implementing all 

aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 

6 of the Act provides that we must 

cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, any qualified employee or 

agent of a State conservation agency that 

is a party to a cooperative agreement 

with us in accordance with section 6(c) 

of the Act, who is designated by his or 

her agency for such purposes, would, 

without additional authorization, be 

able to conduct activities that are 

designed to conserve the northern DPS 

or southern DPS of the western 

spadefoot and that may result in 

otherwise prohibited take. 

Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule 

would change in any way the recovery 

planning provisions of section 4(f) of the 

Act, the consultation requirements 

under section 7 of the Act, or our ability 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of the 

northern DPS or southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. However, 

interagency cooperation may be further 

streamlined through planned 

programmatic consultations for the 

species between us and other Federal 

agencies, where appropriate. We ask the 

public, particularly State agencies and 

other interested stakeholders that may 

be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to 

provide comments and suggestions 

regarding additional guidance and 

methods that we could provide or use, 

respectively, to streamline the 

implementation of this proposed 4(d) 

rule (see Information Requested, above). 

III. Critical Habitat for the Northern 

DPS and Southern DPS of the Western 

Spadefoot 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensure, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. The designation of critical 

habitat does not affect land ownership 

or establish a refuge, wilderness, 

reserve, preserve, or other conservation 

area. Such designation also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84275 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in the proposed 4(d) 

rule. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the northern DPS and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot and 

habitat characteristics where the two 

DPSs are located. A careful assessment 

of the economic impacts that may occur 

due to a critical habitat designation is 

still ongoing, and we are in the process 

of working with our Federal partners, 

Tribes, and State and other partners in 

acquiring the complex information 

needed to perform that assessment. 

Therefore, due to the current lack of 

data sufficient to perform required 

analyses, we conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot is not determinable at 

this time. The Act allows the Service an 

additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation that is not 

determinable at the time of listing (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments), and the 

Department of the Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with federally recognized 

Tribes on a government-to-government 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84276 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

basis. In accordance with Secretaries’ 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal–Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that Tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. We contacted all 

federally recognized Tribes in the range 

of the western spadefoot during the 

initiation of our SSA development 

process and had coordination meetings 

with several Tribes on the timing and 

opportunities for input into our listing 

process. We will continue to work with 

Tribal entities during the development 

of a final listing rule and for the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Carlsbad, 

Sacramento, and Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Offices. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

≤Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, amend paragraph (h) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Spadefoot, Western 

[Northern DPS]’’ and ‘‘Spadefoot, 

Western [Southern DPS]’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

AMPHIBIANS

*******

Spadefoot, Western 

[Northern DPS].

Spea hammondii ............ U.S.A. (northern CA) ...... T .......... [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.43(i); 4d

Spadefoot, Western 

[Southern DPS].

Spea hammondii ............ U.S.A. (southern CA), 

Mexico (Baja California).

T .......... [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.43(i); 4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.43 by adding paragraph 

(i) to read as follows: 

§ 17.43 Special rules—amphibians. 

* * * * * 

(i) Western spadefoot (Spea 

hammondii), northern distinct 

population segment (DPS) and Western 

spadefoot (Spea hammondii), southern 

DPS. 

(1) Location. The northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

are shown on the map that follows: 

Figure 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 84277 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

(2) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the northern DPS 

of the western spadefoot and southern 

DPS of the western spadefoot. Except as 

provided under paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section and §§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is 

unlawful for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit 

another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of the following acts in 

regard to these DPSs: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, as 

set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(3) Exceptions from prohibitions. In 

regard to this species, you may: 

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by 

a permit under § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Take incidental to an otherwise 

lawful activity caused by: 

(A) Activities associated with routine 

livestock ranching on private lands that 

provide and maintain breeding and 

upland habitats and maintain stock 

ponds. 

(B) Implementation of livestock 

grazing as a tool in the course of 

vegetation management and to benefit 

the northern DPS and southern DPS of 

the western spadefoot in vernal pool 

landscapes. 

(C) Landowner actions to maintain the 

minimum clearance of vegetation 

(defensible space) requirement of 100 

feet (30 meters) from any occupied 

dwelling, occupied structure, or to the 

property line, whichever is nearer, to 

provide reasonable fire safety and to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP05DE23.032</GPH>

OREGON 

N 

A 

DPS of the 

defoot 

0 25 50 100 150 

NEVADA 

■.:;~~~~:~~~■ i-les Kilometers 

0 75 150 300 

Scale: 1 :8,000,000 

IDAHO 

UTAH 

ARIZONA 

Counties 

D States 

W:S;d Ocean 
84278 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

reduce wildfire risks to breeding and 

upland habitats of the northern DPS and 

southern DPS of the western spadefoot 

and consistent with the State of 

California fire codes or local fire codes/ 

ordinances. 

(D) Fire management actions (e.g., 

prescribed burns, hazardous fuel 

reduction activities, and maintenance of 

fuel breaks) to maintain, protect, or 

enhance habitat occupied by the 

northern DPS and southern DPS of the 

western spadefoot. 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26579 Filed 12–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 231130–0283; RTID 0648– 

XD454] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands; Proposed 2024 and 

2025 Harvest Specifications for 

Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; harvest 

specifications and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2024 and 

2025 harvest specifications, 

apportionments, and prohibited species 

catch allowances for the groundfish 

fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands (BSAI) management area. This 

action is necessary to establish harvest 

limits for groundfish during the 2024 

and 2025 fishing years and to 

accomplish the goals and objectives of 

the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). The 2024 harvest specifications 

supersede those previously set in the 

final 2023 and 2024 harvest 

specifications, and the 2025 harvest 

specifications will be superseded in 

early 2025 when the final 2025 and 

2026 harvest specifications are 

published. The intended effect of this 

action is to conserve and manage the 

groundfish resources in the BSAI in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2023–0124, 

by either of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2023–0124 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Gretchen Harrington, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Records Office. Mail comments to P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record, 

and NMFS will post the comments for 

public viewing on https://

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender is publicly 

accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Electronic copies of the Alaska 

Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final 

EIS), Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

Final EIS, and the annual 

Supplementary Information Reports 

(SIR) to the Final EIS prepared for this 

action are available from https://

www.regulations.gov. An updated 2024 

SIR for the final 2024 and 2025 harvest 

specifications will be available from the 

same source. The final 2022 Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

(SAFE) report for the groundfish 

resources of the BSAI, dated November 

2022, is available from the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

at 1007 West 3rd Ave., Suite 400, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone 907– 

271–2809, or from the Council’s website 

at https://www.npfmc.org/. The 2023 

SAFE report for the BSAI will be 

available from the same source. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 

implement the FMP and govern the 

groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The 

Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS 

approved it, pursuant to the MagnusonStevens Act. General regulations 

governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 

50 CFR part 600. 

The FMP and its implementing 

regulations require that NMFS, after 

consultation with the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

specify annually the total allowable 

catch (TAC) for each target species 

category. The sum of TACs for all 

groundfish species in the BSAI must be 

within the optimum yield (OY) range of 

1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons 

(mt) (see §§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A) and 

679.20(a)(2)). Section 679.20(c)(1) 

further requires that NMFS publish 

proposed harvest specifications in the 

Federal Register and solicit public 

comments on proposed annual TACs for 

each target species and apportionments 

thereof; prohibited species catch (PSC) 

allowances; prohibited species quota 

(PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21; 

seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific 

cod, and Atka mackerel TAC; American 

Fisheries Act allocations; Amendment 

80 allocations; Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) reserve 

amounts established by 

§ 679.20(b)(1)(ii); and acceptable 

biological catch (ABC) surpluses and 

reserves for CDQ groups and 

Amendment 80 cooperatives for 

flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin 

sole. The proposed harvest 

specifications set forth in Tables 1–16 of 

this action satisfy these requirements. 

Under § 679.20(c)(3), NMFS will 

publish the final 2024 and 2025 harvest 

specifications after (1) considering 

comments received within the comment 

period (see DATES), (2) consulting with 

the Council at its December 2023 

meeting, (3) considering information 

presented in the 2024 SIR to the Final 

EIS that assesses the need to prepare a 

Supplemental EIS (see ADDRESSES), and 

(4) considering information presented in 

the final 2023 SAFE report prepared for 

the 2024 and 2025 groundfish fisheries. 

Other Actions Affecting or Potentially 

Affecting the 2024 and 2025 Harvest 

Specifications 

Halibut Abundance-Based Management 

for the Amendment 80 Program PSC 

Limit 

On December 9, 2022, NMFS 

published a proposed rule associated 

with Amendment 123 to the FMP (87 FR 

75570), which would establish 

abundance-based management of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS